Geriatrics

A single injection of denosumab (Prolia, Amgen), frequently used to treat osteoporosis, may reduce the need for revision surgery in patients with symptomatic osteolysis following total hip arthroplasty, a new proof-of-concept study suggests.

Aseptic loosening is the result of wear-induced osteolysis caused by the prosthetic hip and is a major contributor to the need for revision surgery in many parts of the world.

“The only established treatment for prosthesis-related osteolysis after joint replacement is revision surgery, which carries substantially greater morbidity and mortality than primary joint replacement,” Mohit M. Mahatma, MRes, of the University of Sheffield, England, and colleagues wrote in their article, published online Jan. 11 in The Lancet Rheumatology.

As well as an increased risk of infection and other complications, revision surgery is much more costly than a first-time operation, they added.

“The results of this proof-of-concept clinical trial indicate that denosumab is effective at reducing bone resorption activity within osteolytic lesion tissue and is well tolerated within the limitations of the single dose used here,” they concluded.

Commenting on the findings, Antonia Chen, MD, associate professor of orthopedic surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, emphasized that further studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of this strategy to reduce the need for hip revision surgery.

Nevertheless, “osteolysis is still unfortunately a problem we do have to deal with and we do not have any other way to prevent it,” she said in an interview. “So it’s a good start ... although further studies are definitely needed,” Dr. Chen added.

In an accompanying editorial, Hannu Aro, MD, Turku University Hospital in Finland, agreed: “Without a doubt, the trial is a breakthrough, but it represents only the first step in the development of pharmacological therapy aiming to slow, prevent, or even reverse the process of wear-induced periprosthetic osteolysis.”
 

Small single-center study

The phase 2, single-center, randomized, controlled trial involved 22 patients who had previously undergone hip replacement surgery at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals and were scheduled for revision surgery due to symptomatic osteolysis. They were randomized to a single subcutaneous injection of denosumab at a dose of 60 mg, or placebo, on their second hospital visit.

“The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the number of osteoclasts per mm of osteolytic membrane at the osteolytic membrane-bone interface at week 8,” the authors noted.

At this time point, there were 83% fewer osteoclasts at the interface in the denosumab group compared with placebo, at a median of 0.05 per mm in the treatment group compared with 0.30 per mm in the placebo group (P = .011). 

Secondary histological outcomes were also significantly improved in favor of the denosumab group compared with placebo.
 

Potential to prevent half of all hip revision surgeries?

Patients who received denosumab also demonstrated an acute fall in serum and urinary markers of bone resorption following administration of the drug, reaching a nadir at week 4, which was maintained until revision surgery at week 8.

In contrast, “no change in these markers was observed in the placebo group [P < .0003 for all biomarkers],” the investigators noted. Rates of adverse events were comparable in both treatment groups.

As the authors explained, osteolysis occurs following joint replacement surgery when particles of plastic wear off from the prosthesis, triggering an immune reaction that attacks the bone around the implant, causing the joint to loosen.

“It is very clear from our bone biopsies and bone imaging that the [denosumab] injection stops the bone absorbing the microplastic particles from the replacement joint and therefore could prevent the bone from being eaten away and the need for revision surgery,” senior author Mark Wilkinson, MBChB, PhD, honorary consultant orthopedic surgeon, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, said in a press release from his institution.

“This study is a significant breakthrough as we’ve demonstrated that there is a drug, already available and successful in the treatment of osteoporosis, that has the potential to prevent up to half of all revised replacement surgeries which are caused by osteolysis,” he added.

Dr. Wilkinson and coauthors said their results justify the need for future trials targeting earlier-stage disease to further test the use of denosumab to prevent or reduce the need for revision surgery.

In 2018, aseptic loosening accounted for over half of all revision procedures, as reported to the National Joint Registry in England and Wales.
 

Older polyethylene prostheses are the main culprit

Commenting further on the study, Dr. Chen noted that osteolysis still plagues orthopedic surgeons because the original polyethylene prostheses were not very good. A better prosthesis developed at Massachusetts General Hospital is made up of highly crossed-link polyethylene and still wears over time but to a much lesser extent than the older polyethylene prostheses.

Metal and ceramic prostheses also can induce osteolysis, but again to a much lesser extent than the older polyethylene implants.

“Any particle can technically cause osteolysis but plastic produces the most particles,” Dr. Chen explained. Although hip revision rates in the United States are low to begin with, aseptic loosening is still one of the main reasons that patients need to undergo revision surgery, she observed.

“A lot of patients are still living with the old plastic [implants] so there is still a need for something like this,” she stressed.

However, many questions about this potential new strategy remain to be answered, including when best to initiate treatment and how to manage patients at risk for osteolysis 20-30 years after they have received their original implant.

In his editorial, Dr. Aro said that serious adverse consequences often become evident 10-20 years after patients have undergone the original hip replacement procedures, when they are potentially less physically fit than they were at the time of the operation and thus less able to withstand the rigors of a difficult revision surgery.

“In this context, the concept of nonsurgical pharmacological treatment of periprosthetic osteolysis ... brings a new hope for the ever-increasing population of patients with total hip arthroplasty to avoid revision surgery,” Dr. Aro suggested.

However, Dr. Aro cautioned that reduction of bone turnover by antiresorptive agents such as denosumab has been associated with the development of atypical femoral fractures.

The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Wilkinson has reported receiving a grant from Amgen. Dr. Chen has reported serving as a consultant for Striker and b-One Ortho. Dr. Aro has reported receiving a grant to his institution from Amgen Finland and the Academy of Finland. He has also served as a member of an advisory scientific board for Amgen Finland.

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

A single injection of denosumab (Prolia, Amgen), frequently used to treat osteoporosis, may reduce the need for revision surgery in patients with symptomatic osteolysis following total hip arthroplasty, a new proof-of-concept study suggests.

Aseptic loosening is the result of wear-induced osteolysis caused by the prosthetic hip and is a major contributor to the need for revision surgery in many parts of the world.

“The only established treatment for prosthesis-related osteolysis after joint replacement is revision surgery, which carries substantially greater morbidity and mortality than primary joint replacement,” Mohit M. Mahatma, MRes, of the University of Sheffield, England, and colleagues wrote in their article, published online Jan. 11 in The Lancet Rheumatology.

As well as an increased risk of infection and other complications, revision surgery is much more costly than a first-time operation, they added.

“The results of this proof-of-concept clinical trial indicate that denosumab is effective at reducing bone resorption activity within osteolytic lesion tissue and is well tolerated within the limitations of the single dose used here,” they concluded.

Commenting on the findings, Antonia Chen, MD, associate professor of orthopedic surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, emphasized that further studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of this strategy to reduce the need for hip revision surgery.

Nevertheless, “osteolysis is still unfortunately a problem we do have to deal with and we do not have any other way to prevent it,” she said in an interview. “So it’s a good start ... although further studies are definitely needed,” Dr. Chen added.

In an accompanying editorial, Hannu Aro, MD, Turku University Hospital in Finland, agreed: “Without a doubt, the trial is a breakthrough, but it represents only the first step in the development of pharmacological therapy aiming to slow, prevent, or even reverse the process of wear-induced periprosthetic osteolysis.”
 

Small single-center study

The phase 2, single-center, randomized, controlled trial involved 22 patients who had previously undergone hip replacement surgery at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals and were scheduled for revision surgery due to symptomatic osteolysis. They were randomized to a single subcutaneous injection of denosumab at a dose of 60 mg, or placebo, on their second hospital visit.

“The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the number of osteoclasts per mm of osteolytic membrane at the osteolytic membrane-bone interface at week 8,” the authors noted.

At this time point, there were 83% fewer osteoclasts at the interface in the denosumab group compared with placebo, at a median of 0.05 per mm in the treatment group compared with 0.30 per mm in the placebo group (P = .011). 

Secondary histological outcomes were also significantly improved in favor of the denosumab group compared with placebo.
 

Potential to prevent half of all hip revision surgeries?

Patients who received denosumab also demonstrated an acute fall in serum and urinary markers of bone resorption following administration of the drug, reaching a nadir at week 4, which was maintained until revision surgery at week 8.

In contrast, “no change in these markers was observed in the placebo group [P < .0003 for all biomarkers],” the investigators noted. Rates of adverse events were comparable in both treatment groups.

As the authors explained, osteolysis occurs following joint replacement surgery when particles of plastic wear off from the prosthesis, triggering an immune reaction that attacks the bone around the implant, causing the joint to loosen.

“It is very clear from our bone biopsies and bone imaging that the [denosumab] injection stops the bone absorbing the microplastic particles from the replacement joint and therefore could prevent the bone from being eaten away and the need for revision surgery,” senior author Mark Wilkinson, MBChB, PhD, honorary consultant orthopedic surgeon, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, said in a press release from his institution.

“This study is a significant breakthrough as we’ve demonstrated that there is a drug, already available and successful in the treatment of osteoporosis, that has the potential to prevent up to half of all revised replacement surgeries which are caused by osteolysis,” he added.

Dr. Wilkinson and coauthors said their results justify the need for future trials targeting earlier-stage disease to further test the use of denosumab to prevent or reduce the need for revision surgery.

In 2018, aseptic loosening accounted for over half of all revision procedures, as reported to the National Joint Registry in England and Wales.
 

Older polyethylene prostheses are the main culprit

Commenting further on the study, Dr. Chen noted that osteolysis still plagues orthopedic surgeons because the original polyethylene prostheses were not very good. A better prosthesis developed at Massachusetts General Hospital is made up of highly crossed-link polyethylene and still wears over time but to a much lesser extent than the older polyethylene prostheses.

Metal and ceramic prostheses also can induce osteolysis, but again to a much lesser extent than the older polyethylene implants.

“Any particle can technically cause osteolysis but plastic produces the most particles,” Dr. Chen explained. Although hip revision rates in the United States are low to begin with, aseptic loosening is still one of the main reasons that patients need to undergo revision surgery, she observed.

“A lot of patients are still living with the old plastic [implants] so there is still a need for something like this,” she stressed.

However, many questions about this potential new strategy remain to be answered, including when best to initiate treatment and how to manage patients at risk for osteolysis 20-30 years after they have received their original implant.

In his editorial, Dr. Aro said that serious adverse consequences often become evident 10-20 years after patients have undergone the original hip replacement procedures, when they are potentially less physically fit than they were at the time of the operation and thus less able to withstand the rigors of a difficult revision surgery.

“In this context, the concept of nonsurgical pharmacological treatment of periprosthetic osteolysis ... brings a new hope for the ever-increasing population of patients with total hip arthroplasty to avoid revision surgery,” Dr. Aro suggested.

However, Dr. Aro cautioned that reduction of bone turnover by antiresorptive agents such as denosumab has been associated with the development of atypical femoral fractures.

The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Wilkinson has reported receiving a grant from Amgen. Dr. Chen has reported serving as a consultant for Striker and b-One Ortho. Dr. Aro has reported receiving a grant to his institution from Amgen Finland and the Academy of Finland. He has also served as a member of an advisory scientific board for Amgen Finland.

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

A single injection of denosumab (Prolia, Amgen), frequently used to treat osteoporosis, may reduce the need for revision surgery in patients with symptomatic osteolysis following total hip arthroplasty, a new proof-of-concept study suggests.

Aseptic loosening is the result of wear-induced osteolysis caused by the prosthetic hip and is a major contributor to the need for revision surgery in many parts of the world.

“The only established treatment for prosthesis-related osteolysis after joint replacement is revision surgery, which carries substantially greater morbidity and mortality than primary joint replacement,” Mohit M. Mahatma, MRes, of the University of Sheffield, England, and colleagues wrote in their article, published online Jan. 11 in The Lancet Rheumatology.

As well as an increased risk of infection and other complications, revision surgery is much more costly than a first-time operation, they added.

“The results of this proof-of-concept clinical trial indicate that denosumab is effective at reducing bone resorption activity within osteolytic lesion tissue and is well tolerated within the limitations of the single dose used here,” they concluded.

Commenting on the findings, Antonia Chen, MD, associate professor of orthopedic surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, emphasized that further studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of this strategy to reduce the need for hip revision surgery.

Nevertheless, “osteolysis is still unfortunately a problem we do have to deal with and we do not have any other way to prevent it,” she said in an interview. “So it’s a good start ... although further studies are definitely needed,” Dr. Chen added.

In an accompanying editorial, Hannu Aro, MD, Turku University Hospital in Finland, agreed: “Without a doubt, the trial is a breakthrough, but it represents only the first step in the development of pharmacological therapy aiming to slow, prevent, or even reverse the process of wear-induced periprosthetic osteolysis.”
 

Small single-center study

The phase 2, single-center, randomized, controlled trial involved 22 patients who had previously undergone hip replacement surgery at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals and were scheduled for revision surgery due to symptomatic osteolysis. They were randomized to a single subcutaneous injection of denosumab at a dose of 60 mg, or placebo, on their second hospital visit.

“The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the number of osteoclasts per mm of osteolytic membrane at the osteolytic membrane-bone interface at week 8,” the authors noted.

At this time point, there were 83% fewer osteoclasts at the interface in the denosumab group compared with placebo, at a median of 0.05 per mm in the treatment group compared with 0.30 per mm in the placebo group (P = .011). 

Secondary histological outcomes were also significantly improved in favor of the denosumab group compared with placebo.
 

Potential to prevent half of all hip revision surgeries?

Patients who received denosumab also demonstrated an acute fall in serum and urinary markers of bone resorption following administration of the drug, reaching a nadir at week 4, which was maintained until revision surgery at week 8.

In contrast, “no change in these markers was observed in the placebo group [P < .0003 for all biomarkers],” the investigators noted. Rates of adverse events were comparable in both treatment groups.

As the authors explained, osteolysis occurs following joint replacement surgery when particles of plastic wear off from the prosthesis, triggering an immune reaction that attacks the bone around the implant, causing the joint to loosen.

“It is very clear from our bone biopsies and bone imaging that the [denosumab] injection stops the bone absorbing the microplastic particles from the replacement joint and therefore could prevent the bone from being eaten away and the need for revision surgery,” senior author Mark Wilkinson, MBChB, PhD, honorary consultant orthopedic surgeon, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, said in a press release from his institution.

“This study is a significant breakthrough as we’ve demonstrated that there is a drug, already available and successful in the treatment of osteoporosis, that has the potential to prevent up to half of all revised replacement surgeries which are caused by osteolysis,” he added.

Dr. Wilkinson and coauthors said their results justify the need for future trials targeting earlier-stage disease to further test the use of denosumab to prevent or reduce the need for revision surgery.

In 2018, aseptic loosening accounted for over half of all revision procedures, as reported to the National Joint Registry in England and Wales.
 

Older polyethylene prostheses are the main culprit

Commenting further on the study, Dr. Chen noted that osteolysis still plagues orthopedic surgeons because the original polyethylene prostheses were not very good. A better prosthesis developed at Massachusetts General Hospital is made up of highly crossed-link polyethylene and still wears over time but to a much lesser extent than the older polyethylene prostheses.

Metal and ceramic prostheses also can induce osteolysis, but again to a much lesser extent than the older polyethylene implants.

“Any particle can technically cause osteolysis but plastic produces the most particles,” Dr. Chen explained. Although hip revision rates in the United States are low to begin with, aseptic loosening is still one of the main reasons that patients need to undergo revision surgery, she observed.

“A lot of patients are still living with the old plastic [implants] so there is still a need for something like this,” she stressed.

However, many questions about this potential new strategy remain to be answered, including when best to initiate treatment and how to manage patients at risk for osteolysis 20-30 years after they have received their original implant.

In his editorial, Dr. Aro said that serious adverse consequences often become evident 10-20 years after patients have undergone the original hip replacement procedures, when they are potentially less physically fit than they were at the time of the operation and thus less able to withstand the rigors of a difficult revision surgery.

“In this context, the concept of nonsurgical pharmacological treatment of periprosthetic osteolysis ... brings a new hope for the ever-increasing population of patients with total hip arthroplasty to avoid revision surgery,” Dr. Aro suggested.

However, Dr. Aro cautioned that reduction of bone turnover by antiresorptive agents such as denosumab has been associated with the development of atypical femoral fractures.

The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Wilkinson has reported receiving a grant from Amgen. Dr. Chen has reported serving as a consultant for Striker and b-One Ortho. Dr. Aro has reported receiving a grant to his institution from Amgen Finland and the Academy of Finland. He has also served as a member of an advisory scientific board for Amgen Finland.

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

Administering convalescent plasma that has high levels of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 within the first 3 days of symptoms was associated with significantly lower chances of progression to severe COVID-19, new evidence demonstrates.

In a trial of 160 older adults with COVID-19, half of whom were randomly assigned to receive plasma and half to receive placebo infusion, treatment with high-titer plasma lowered the relative risk for severe disease by 48% in an intent-to-treat analysis.

“We now have evidence, in the context of a small but well-designed study, that convalescent plasma with high titers of antibody against SARS-CoV-2 administered in the first 3 days of mild symptoms to infected elderly reduces progression of illness and the rate of severe presentations,” senior author Fernando Polack, MD, said in an interview.

“Not any plasma, not any time,” added Dr. Polack, an infectious disease specialist and scientific director at Fundacion INFANT and professor of pediatrics at the University of Buenos Aires. The key, he said, is to select plasma in the upper 28th percentile of IgG antibody concentrations and to administer therapy prior to disease progression.

The study was published online Jan. 6 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“It’s a very good study and approaches a different population from the PlasmAr study,” Ventura Simonovich, MD, chief of the clinical pharmacology section, Medical Clinic Service, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, said in an interview. “This is the first published randomized controlled trial that shows real benefit in this [older adult] population, the most vulnerable in this disease,” he said.

Dr. Simonovich, who was not affiliated with the current study, was lead author of the PlasmAr trial, which was published in The New England Journal of Medicine Nov. 24, 2020. In that trial, the researchers evaluated adults aged 18 years and older and found no significant benefit with convalescent plasma treatment over placebo for patients with COVID-19 and severe pneumonia.

“We know antibodies work best when given early and in high dose. This is one of the rare reports that validates it in the outpatient setting,” David Sullivan, MD, professor of molecular biology and immunology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in an interview when asked to comment.

Dr. Sullivan pointed out that most previous studies on convalescent plasma focused on patients with COVID-19 who had severe cases late in the disease course.

Regarding the current study, he said, “The striking thing is treating people within 3 days of illness.”

A more cautious interpretation may be warranted, one expert said. “The study demonstrates the benefit of early intervention. There was a dose-dependent effect, with higher titers providing a greater benefit,” Manoj Menon, MD, MPH, a hematologist and oncologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

“Taken together, the findings have biologic plausibility and produce more data on the role of convalescent plasma to a relevant age cohort,” he added.

However, Dr. Menon said: “Given the limited sample size, I do not think this study, although well conducted, definitively addresses the role of convalescent plasma for COVID-19. But it does merit additional study.”

A search for clear answers

Treatments that target the early stages of COVID-19 “remain elusive. Few strategies provide benefit, several have failed, and others are being evaluated,” the researchers noted. “In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the infusion of convalescent plasma against SARS-CoV-2 late in the course of illness has not shown clear benefits and, consequently, the most appropriate antibody concentrations for effective treatment are unclear.”

To learn more, Dr. Polack and colleagues included patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 who were aged 75 years or older, regardless of comorbidities. They also included patients aged 65-74 years who had at least one underlying condition. Participants were enrolled at clinical sites or geriatric units in Argentina. The mean age was 77 years, and 62% were women.

In an intent-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome – severe respiratory disease – occurred in 16% of the plasma recipients, vs. 31% of the group that received placebo. The relative risk was 0.52 (95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.94; P = .03).

The number needed to treat to avoid a severe respiratory disease episode was 7 (95% CI, 4-50).

Life-threatening respiratory disease, a secondary outcome, occurred in four people in the plasma group, compared with 10 in the placebo group. Two patients in the treatment group and four patients in the placebo group died.

The researchers also ran a modified intent-to-treat analysis that excluded six participants who experienced severe respiratory disease prior to receiving plasma or placebo. In this analysis, efficacy of plasma therapy increased to 60%.

“Again, this finding suggests that early intervention is critical for efficacy,” the investigators noted.

The investigators, who are based in Argentina, defined their primary endpoint as a respiratory rate of 30 or more breaths per minute and/or an oxygen saturation of less than 93% while breathing ambient air.

Dr. Sullivan pointed out that this is equivalent to the threshold commonly used for hospitalizing people with COVID-19 in the United States. “So it’s equivalent to avoiding hospitalizations. The take-home is high-titer plasma prevents respiratory distress, which equals hospitalization for us.”

Dr. Sullivan is conducting similar research in the United States regarding the use of plasma for treatment or prevention. He and colleagues are evaluating adults aged 18-90 years, “not just the ones at highest risk for going to the hospital,” he said. Enrollment is ongoing.
 

An inexpensive therapy with global potential?

“Although our trial lacked the statistical power to discern long-term outcomes, the convalescent plasma group appeared to have better outcomes than the placebo group with respect to all secondary endpoints,” the researchers wrote. “Our findings underscore the need to return to the classic approach of treating acute viral infections early, and they define IgG targets that facilitate donor selection.”

Dr. Polack said, “This is an inexpensive solution to mitigate the burden of severe illness in the population most vulnerable to the virus: the elderly. And it has the attraction of being applicable not only in industrialized countries but in many areas of the developing world.”

Convalescent plasma “is a potentially inexpensive alternative to monoclonal antibodies,” the researchers added. Furthermore, “early infusions of convalescent plasma can provide a bridge to recovery for at-risk patients until vaccines become widely available.”

Dr. Polack said the study findings did not surprise him. “We always thought that, as it has been the case in the past with many therapeutic strategies against respiratory and other viral infections, the earlier you treat, the better.

“We just hoped that within 72 hours of symptoms we would be treating early enough – remember that there is a 4- to 5-day incubation period that the virus leverages before the first symptom – and with enough antibody,” he added.

“We are glad it worked,” he said.

The study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and by the Fundación INFANT Pandemic Fund. Dr. Polack, Dr. Simonovich, and Dr. Sullivan have disclosed various financial relationships industry.

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

Administering convalescent plasma that has high levels of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 within the first 3 days of symptoms was associated with significantly lower chances of progression to severe COVID-19, new evidence demonstrates.

In a trial of 160 older adults with COVID-19, half of whom were randomly assigned to receive plasma and half to receive placebo infusion, treatment with high-titer plasma lowered the relative risk for severe disease by 48% in an intent-to-treat analysis.

“We now have evidence, in the context of a small but well-designed study, that convalescent plasma with high titers of antibody against SARS-CoV-2 administered in the first 3 days of mild symptoms to infected elderly reduces progression of illness and the rate of severe presentations,” senior author Fernando Polack, MD, said in an interview.

“Not any plasma, not any time,” added Dr. Polack, an infectious disease specialist and scientific director at Fundacion INFANT and professor of pediatrics at the University of Buenos Aires. The key, he said, is to select plasma in the upper 28th percentile of IgG antibody concentrations and to administer therapy prior to disease progression.

The study was published online Jan. 6 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“It’s a very good study and approaches a different population from the PlasmAr study,” Ventura Simonovich, MD, chief of the clinical pharmacology section, Medical Clinic Service, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, said in an interview. “This is the first published randomized controlled trial that shows real benefit in this [older adult] population, the most vulnerable in this disease,” he said.

Dr. Simonovich, who was not affiliated with the current study, was lead author of the PlasmAr trial, which was published in The New England Journal of Medicine Nov. 24, 2020. In that trial, the researchers evaluated adults aged 18 years and older and found no significant benefit with convalescent plasma treatment over placebo for patients with COVID-19 and severe pneumonia.

“We know antibodies work best when given early and in high dose. This is one of the rare reports that validates it in the outpatient setting,” David Sullivan, MD, professor of molecular biology and immunology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in an interview when asked to comment.

Dr. Sullivan pointed out that most previous studies on convalescent plasma focused on patients with COVID-19 who had severe cases late in the disease course.

Regarding the current study, he said, “The striking thing is treating people within 3 days of illness.”

A more cautious interpretation may be warranted, one expert said. “The study demonstrates the benefit of early intervention. There was a dose-dependent effect, with higher titers providing a greater benefit,” Manoj Menon, MD, MPH, a hematologist and oncologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

“Taken together, the findings have biologic plausibility and produce more data on the role of convalescent plasma to a relevant age cohort,” he added.

However, Dr. Menon said: “Given the limited sample size, I do not think this study, although well conducted, definitively addresses the role of convalescent plasma for COVID-19. But it does merit additional study.”

A search for clear answers

Treatments that target the early stages of COVID-19 “remain elusive. Few strategies provide benefit, several have failed, and others are being evaluated,” the researchers noted. “In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the infusion of convalescent plasma against SARS-CoV-2 late in the course of illness has not shown clear benefits and, consequently, the most appropriate antibody concentrations for effective treatment are unclear.”

To learn more, Dr. Polack and colleagues included patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 who were aged 75 years or older, regardless of comorbidities. They also included patients aged 65-74 years who had at least one underlying condition. Participants were enrolled at clinical sites or geriatric units in Argentina. The mean age was 77 years, and 62% were women.

In an intent-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome – severe respiratory disease – occurred in 16% of the plasma recipients, vs. 31% of the group that received placebo. The relative risk was 0.52 (95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.94; P = .03).

The number needed to treat to avoid a severe respiratory disease episode was 7 (95% CI, 4-50).

Life-threatening respiratory disease, a secondary outcome, occurred in four people in the plasma group, compared with 10 in the placebo group. Two patients in the treatment group and four patients in the placebo group died.

The researchers also ran a modified intent-to-treat analysis that excluded six participants who experienced severe respiratory disease prior to receiving plasma or placebo. In this analysis, efficacy of plasma therapy increased to 60%.

“Again, this finding suggests that early intervention is critical for efficacy,” the investigators noted.

The investigators, who are based in Argentina, defined their primary endpoint as a respiratory rate of 30 or more breaths per minute and/or an oxygen saturation of less than 93% while breathing ambient air.

Dr. Sullivan pointed out that this is equivalent to the threshold commonly used for hospitalizing people with COVID-19 in the United States. “So it’s equivalent to avoiding hospitalizations. The take-home is high-titer plasma prevents respiratory distress, which equals hospitalization for us.”

Dr. Sullivan is conducting similar research in the United States regarding the use of plasma for treatment or prevention. He and colleagues are evaluating adults aged 18-90 years, “not just the ones at highest risk for going to the hospital,” he said. Enrollment is ongoing.
 

An inexpensive therapy with global potential?

“Although our trial lacked the statistical power to discern long-term outcomes, the convalescent plasma group appeared to have better outcomes than the placebo group with respect to all secondary endpoints,” the researchers wrote. “Our findings underscore the need to return to the classic approach of treating acute viral infections early, and they define IgG targets that facilitate donor selection.”

Dr. Polack said, “This is an inexpensive solution to mitigate the burden of severe illness in the population most vulnerable to the virus: the elderly. And it has the attraction of being applicable not only in industrialized countries but in many areas of the developing world.”

Convalescent plasma “is a potentially inexpensive alternative to monoclonal antibodies,” the researchers added. Furthermore, “early infusions of convalescent plasma can provide a bridge to recovery for at-risk patients until vaccines become widely available.”

Dr. Polack said the study findings did not surprise him. “We always thought that, as it has been the case in the past with many therapeutic strategies against respiratory and other viral infections, the earlier you treat, the better.

“We just hoped that within 72 hours of symptoms we would be treating early enough – remember that there is a 4- to 5-day incubation period that the virus leverages before the first symptom – and with enough antibody,” he added.

“We are glad it worked,” he said.

The study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and by the Fundación INFANT Pandemic Fund. Dr. Polack, Dr. Simonovich, and Dr. Sullivan have disclosed various financial relationships industry.

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

Administering convalescent plasma that has high levels of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 within the first 3 days of symptoms was associated with significantly lower chances of progression to severe COVID-19, new evidence demonstrates.

In a trial of 160 older adults with COVID-19, half of whom were randomly assigned to receive plasma and half to receive placebo infusion, treatment with high-titer plasma lowered the relative risk for severe disease by 48% in an intent-to-treat analysis.

“We now have evidence, in the context of a small but well-designed study, that convalescent plasma with high titers of antibody against SARS-CoV-2 administered in the first 3 days of mild symptoms to infected elderly reduces progression of illness and the rate of severe presentations,” senior author Fernando Polack, MD, said in an interview.

“Not any plasma, not any time,” added Dr. Polack, an infectious disease specialist and scientific director at Fundacion INFANT and professor of pediatrics at the University of Buenos Aires. The key, he said, is to select plasma in the upper 28th percentile of IgG antibody concentrations and to administer therapy prior to disease progression.

The study was published online Jan. 6 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“It’s a very good study and approaches a different population from the PlasmAr study,” Ventura Simonovich, MD, chief of the clinical pharmacology section, Medical Clinic Service, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, said in an interview. “This is the first published randomized controlled trial that shows real benefit in this [older adult] population, the most vulnerable in this disease,” he said.

Dr. Simonovich, who was not affiliated with the current study, was lead author of the PlasmAr trial, which was published in The New England Journal of Medicine Nov. 24, 2020. In that trial, the researchers evaluated adults aged 18 years and older and found no significant benefit with convalescent plasma treatment over placebo for patients with COVID-19 and severe pneumonia.

“We know antibodies work best when given early and in high dose. This is one of the rare reports that validates it in the outpatient setting,” David Sullivan, MD, professor of molecular biology and immunology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in an interview when asked to comment.

Dr. Sullivan pointed out that most previous studies on convalescent plasma focused on patients with COVID-19 who had severe cases late in the disease course.

Regarding the current study, he said, “The striking thing is treating people within 3 days of illness.”

A more cautious interpretation may be warranted, one expert said. “The study demonstrates the benefit of early intervention. There was a dose-dependent effect, with higher titers providing a greater benefit,” Manoj Menon, MD, MPH, a hematologist and oncologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

“Taken together, the findings have biologic plausibility and produce more data on the role of convalescent plasma to a relevant age cohort,” he added.

However, Dr. Menon said: “Given the limited sample size, I do not think this study, although well conducted, definitively addresses the role of convalescent plasma for COVID-19. But it does merit additional study.”

A search for clear answers

Treatments that target the early stages of COVID-19 “remain elusive. Few strategies provide benefit, several have failed, and others are being evaluated,” the researchers noted. “In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the infusion of convalescent plasma against SARS-CoV-2 late in the course of illness has not shown clear benefits and, consequently, the most appropriate antibody concentrations for effective treatment are unclear.”

To learn more, Dr. Polack and colleagues included patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 who were aged 75 years or older, regardless of comorbidities. They also included patients aged 65-74 years who had at least one underlying condition. Participants were enrolled at clinical sites or geriatric units in Argentina. The mean age was 77 years, and 62% were women.

In an intent-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome – severe respiratory disease – occurred in 16% of the plasma recipients, vs. 31% of the group that received placebo. The relative risk was 0.52 (95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.94; P = .03).

The number needed to treat to avoid a severe respiratory disease episode was 7 (95% CI, 4-50).

Life-threatening respiratory disease, a secondary outcome, occurred in four people in the plasma group, compared with 10 in the placebo group. Two patients in the treatment group and four patients in the placebo group died.

The researchers also ran a modified intent-to-treat analysis that excluded six participants who experienced severe respiratory disease prior to receiving plasma or placebo. In this analysis, efficacy of plasma therapy increased to 60%.

“Again, this finding suggests that early intervention is critical for efficacy,” the investigators noted.

The investigators, who are based in Argentina, defined their primary endpoint as a respiratory rate of 30 or more breaths per minute and/or an oxygen saturation of less than 93% while breathing ambient air.

Dr. Sullivan pointed out that this is equivalent to the threshold commonly used for hospitalizing people with COVID-19 in the United States. “So it’s equivalent to avoiding hospitalizations. The take-home is high-titer plasma prevents respiratory distress, which equals hospitalization for us.”

Dr. Sullivan is conducting similar research in the United States regarding the use of plasma for treatment or prevention. He and colleagues are evaluating adults aged 18-90 years, “not just the ones at highest risk for going to the hospital,” he said. Enrollment is ongoing.
 

An inexpensive therapy with global potential?

“Although our trial lacked the statistical power to discern long-term outcomes, the convalescent plasma group appeared to have better outcomes than the placebo group with respect to all secondary endpoints,” the researchers wrote. “Our findings underscore the need to return to the classic approach of treating acute viral infections early, and they define IgG targets that facilitate donor selection.”

Dr. Polack said, “This is an inexpensive solution to mitigate the burden of severe illness in the population most vulnerable to the virus: the elderly. And it has the attraction of being applicable not only in industrialized countries but in many areas of the developing world.”

Convalescent plasma “is a potentially inexpensive alternative to monoclonal antibodies,” the researchers added. Furthermore, “early infusions of convalescent plasma can provide a bridge to recovery for at-risk patients until vaccines become widely available.”

Dr. Polack said the study findings did not surprise him. “We always thought that, as it has been the case in the past with many therapeutic strategies against respiratory and other viral infections, the earlier you treat, the better.

“We just hoped that within 72 hours of symptoms we would be treating early enough – remember that there is a 4- to 5-day incubation period that the virus leverages before the first symptom – and with enough antibody,” he added.

“We are glad it worked,” he said.

The study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and by the Fundación INFANT Pandemic Fund. Dr. Polack, Dr. Simonovich, and Dr. Sullivan have disclosed various financial relationships industry.

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

The rates of osteopenia and osteoporosis among individuals with psoriatic arthritis are comparable to those seen in the general population, research suggests.

The cohort study, published in Arthritis Care & Research, also found that clinicians are likely to refer patients for bone mineral density (BMD) testing based on osteoporosis risk factors or psoriatic arthritis disease severity markers.

Timothy S.H. Kwok, MD, of the University of Toronto, and coauthors wrote that previous research suggested a possible link between psoriatic arthritis and osteoporosis or osteopenia. However, no cohort studies appear to have examined this association.

The study involved 201 individuals with psoriatic arthritis attending a single specialist clinic, who were enrolled in a longitudinal study of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and who were also referred for BMD testing with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.

Of these participants, 13% had a BMD in the osteoporotic range, 45% were in the osteopenic range, and 42% were in the normal range for BMD. The prevalence of osteoporosis observed in the general population aged 50 or above, observed in an earlier large prospective study, ranged from 7% to 16%, and osteopenia ranged from 27% to 46%.

“Our study suggests that patients with PsA have similar BMDs compared to the general population,” the authors wrote.

Researchers did note the suggestion that patients with polyarthritis had lower BMDs over time. Because of the small number of events, this did not achieve statistical significance, but “this relationship warrants further research, given that multiple cohort studies have independently demonstrated polyarticular onset of disease predicting clinical deformities and erosive disease in PsA,” they wrote.

They also saw that patients with increased body mass index had a significant 21% lower odds of having a BMD in the osteoporotic range, while those using biologics had a significant 83% lower odds.

Among participants with BMD scores in the osteopenic or osteoporotic range, these scores were seen in the lumbar spine in 63% of measurements, the femoral neck in 88%, and the total hip in 39%. Mean T-scores for the lumbar spine were –0.30±0.32, and for the femoral neck were –1.10±1.04 and the total hip, –0.45±0.42.

The study also examined what factors were associated with referral for BMD testing. They found that increasing age, menopause, elevated acute phase reactants, or use of biologics, methotrexate, and systemic glucocorticoids were associated with a higher likelihood of undergoing BMD testing.

Noting that the latest Canadian clinical practice guidelines on BMD testing advise that age, menopause, and use of systemic glucocorticoids use are risk factors that should prompt testing, the authors suggested clinicians were using a combination of traditional osteoporosis risk factors and markers of psoriatic disease severity to underpin their decision to refer.

However, they commented that none of the factors associated with a higher likelihood of having a BMD test were actually associated with lower BMD scores.

“This suggests that clinicians may be over-screening patients with PsA for osteopenia/osteoporosis, as they do not appear to be at baseline higher risk for lower BMD scores than the general population,” they wrote. “This is of importance, as there are currently no formal recommendations with regards to the optimal interval or time to commence BMD testing within the recent major PsA guidelines.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Kwok TSH et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Dec 16. doi: 10.1002/acr.24538.

The rates of osteopenia and osteoporosis among individuals with psoriatic arthritis are comparable to those seen in the general population, research suggests.

The cohort study, published in Arthritis Care & Research, also found that clinicians are likely to refer patients for bone mineral density (BMD) testing based on osteoporosis risk factors or psoriatic arthritis disease severity markers.

Timothy S.H. Kwok, MD, of the University of Toronto, and coauthors wrote that previous research suggested a possible link between psoriatic arthritis and osteoporosis or osteopenia. However, no cohort studies appear to have examined this association.

The study involved 201 individuals with psoriatic arthritis attending a single specialist clinic, who were enrolled in a longitudinal study of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and who were also referred for BMD testing with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.

Of these participants, 13% had a BMD in the osteoporotic range, 45% were in the osteopenic range, and 42% were in the normal range for BMD. The prevalence of osteoporosis observed in the general population aged 50 or above, observed in an earlier large prospective study, ranged from 7% to 16%, and osteopenia ranged from 27% to 46%.

“Our study suggests that patients with PsA have similar BMDs compared to the general population,” the authors wrote.

Researchers did note the suggestion that patients with polyarthritis had lower BMDs over time. Because of the small number of events, this did not achieve statistical significance, but “this relationship warrants further research, given that multiple cohort studies have independently demonstrated polyarticular onset of disease predicting clinical deformities and erosive disease in PsA,” they wrote.

They also saw that patients with increased body mass index had a significant 21% lower odds of having a BMD in the osteoporotic range, while those using biologics had a significant 83% lower odds.

Among participants with BMD scores in the osteopenic or osteoporotic range, these scores were seen in the lumbar spine in 63% of measurements, the femoral neck in 88%, and the total hip in 39%. Mean T-scores for the lumbar spine were –0.30±0.32, and for the femoral neck were –1.10±1.04 and the total hip, –0.45±0.42.

The study also examined what factors were associated with referral for BMD testing. They found that increasing age, menopause, elevated acute phase reactants, or use of biologics, methotrexate, and systemic glucocorticoids were associated with a higher likelihood of undergoing BMD testing.

Noting that the latest Canadian clinical practice guidelines on BMD testing advise that age, menopause, and use of systemic glucocorticoids use are risk factors that should prompt testing, the authors suggested clinicians were using a combination of traditional osteoporosis risk factors and markers of psoriatic disease severity to underpin their decision to refer.

However, they commented that none of the factors associated with a higher likelihood of having a BMD test were actually associated with lower BMD scores.

“This suggests that clinicians may be over-screening patients with PsA for osteopenia/osteoporosis, as they do not appear to be at baseline higher risk for lower BMD scores than the general population,” they wrote. “This is of importance, as there are currently no formal recommendations with regards to the optimal interval or time to commence BMD testing within the recent major PsA guidelines.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Kwok TSH et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Dec 16. doi: 10.1002/acr.24538.

The rates of osteopenia and osteoporosis among individuals with psoriatic arthritis are comparable to those seen in the general population, research suggests.

The cohort study, published in Arthritis Care & Research, also found that clinicians are likely to refer patients for bone mineral density (BMD) testing based on osteoporosis risk factors or psoriatic arthritis disease severity markers.

Timothy S.H. Kwok, MD, of the University of Toronto, and coauthors wrote that previous research suggested a possible link between psoriatic arthritis and osteoporosis or osteopenia. However, no cohort studies appear to have examined this association.

The study involved 201 individuals with psoriatic arthritis attending a single specialist clinic, who were enrolled in a longitudinal study of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and who were also referred for BMD testing with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.

Of these participants, 13% had a BMD in the osteoporotic range, 45% were in the osteopenic range, and 42% were in the normal range for BMD. The prevalence of osteoporosis observed in the general population aged 50 or above, observed in an earlier large prospective study, ranged from 7% to 16%, and osteopenia ranged from 27% to 46%.

“Our study suggests that patients with PsA have similar BMDs compared to the general population,” the authors wrote.

Researchers did note the suggestion that patients with polyarthritis had lower BMDs over time. Because of the small number of events, this did not achieve statistical significance, but “this relationship warrants further research, given that multiple cohort studies have independently demonstrated polyarticular onset of disease predicting clinical deformities and erosive disease in PsA,” they wrote.

They also saw that patients with increased body mass index had a significant 21% lower odds of having a BMD in the osteoporotic range, while those using biologics had a significant 83% lower odds.

Among participants with BMD scores in the osteopenic or osteoporotic range, these scores were seen in the lumbar spine in 63% of measurements, the femoral neck in 88%, and the total hip in 39%. Mean T-scores for the lumbar spine were –0.30±0.32, and for the femoral neck were –1.10±1.04 and the total hip, –0.45±0.42.

The study also examined what factors were associated with referral for BMD testing. They found that increasing age, menopause, elevated acute phase reactants, or use of biologics, methotrexate, and systemic glucocorticoids were associated with a higher likelihood of undergoing BMD testing.

Noting that the latest Canadian clinical practice guidelines on BMD testing advise that age, menopause, and use of systemic glucocorticoids use are risk factors that should prompt testing, the authors suggested clinicians were using a combination of traditional osteoporosis risk factors and markers of psoriatic disease severity to underpin their decision to refer.

However, they commented that none of the factors associated with a higher likelihood of having a BMD test were actually associated with lower BMD scores.

“This suggests that clinicians may be over-screening patients with PsA for osteopenia/osteoporosis, as they do not appear to be at baseline higher risk for lower BMD scores than the general population,” they wrote. “This is of importance, as there are currently no formal recommendations with regards to the optimal interval or time to commence BMD testing within the recent major PsA guidelines.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Kwok TSH et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Dec 16. doi: 10.1002/acr.24538.

Women treated with oral bisphosphonate drugs for osteoporosis for 5 years get no additional benefit – in terms of hip fracture risk – if the treatment is extended for another 5 years, new research shows.

Raycat/Getty Images

“We found that hip fracture risk in women did not differ if women stopped bisphosphonate use after 5 years or stayed on the medication for 10 years,” coauthor Joan C. Lo, MD, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, said in an interview.

The new study, published Dec. 7 in JAMA Network Open, did show a small benefit in continuing the treatment through 7 years vs. 5 years, but it wasn’t clear if this was significant.

“Whether there is a benefit to staying on the drug for 7 years needs to be further studied in randomized trials,” Dr. Lo stressed.

It is well established that oral bisphosphonates are effective in reducing the risk for fracture within the first 3-5 years of treatment; however, evidence on the effects of treatment beyond 5 years is lacking.

The most recent guidance from the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) on the issue, which were released in 2015, recommends continuation of bisphosphonates beyond 5 years for high-risk patients, but it recommends a “drug holiday” for low-risk patients.
 

Study adds important new evidence

However, that guidance acknowledges that data are limited regarding long-term use. This large new study adds important new evidence to the discussion, Robert A. Adler, MD, who was a member of the ASBMR Task Force for the recent guidance, said in an interview.

“[With the lack of recent research,] this new study from Kaiser Permanente is of great interest,” said Dr. Adler, chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Central Virginia Veterans Affairs Health Care System and professor of internal medicine and of epidemiology at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

“It is new data and suggests we might temper our enthusiasm for long-term treatment with bisphosphonates,” he said.

“Importantly, it is the first large observational trial and is closer to a real-world setting than a randomized controlled trial,” he said.

But, Dr. Adler emphasized: “The take-home message is that while this suggests that patients can probably be given a drug holiday for a couple of years ... they should be retested, and if they appear to be at an increased risk of fracture, they probably should restart again.

“Osteoporosis is a chronic disorder,” he emphasized. “It isn’t cured by any of our treatments, and as people get older, they are at a higher fracture risk.

“So we really need to follow our patients for a lifetime and reassess their fracture risk every couple of years – whether they are still on therapy or on a drug holiday.”
 

Possible that 7 years is better than 5 but remains to be proven

The new study involved data from Kaiser Permanente Northern and Southern California on 29,685 women who had completed 5 years of treatment with oral bisphosphonates, including alendronate, risedronate, or ibandronate, between 2002 and 2014.

Among the women, 11,105 (37%) continued taking the drugs beyond 5 years to 7 years, and 2,725 (9.2%) completed a total of 10 years of treatment.

Their median age was 71. Among those for whom bone mineral density data were available, 37% had osteoporosis after the first 5 years of treatment.

During these 5 years of treatment, 507 hip fractures occurred.

The cumulative incidence of hip fracture among for those who discontinued study therapy at entry, i.e., those who underwent treatment for 5 years, was 23.0 per 1,000 individuals.

After 7 years of treatment, the rate was 20.8 per 1000. For those who continued therapy for 10 years, the rate was 26.8 per 1000 individuals.

The rate in the 7-year treatment group was based on patients taking a 6-month drug holiday after the initial 5 years, but the results are hard to interpret, Dr. Lo said.

“It’s possible that 7 years is better than 5, but this is not a randomized trial, and some of the data analyses done in the study suggest more research should be done to look at a benefit after 7 years.

“At the end of the day, doctors and women need to decide at 5 years what an individual woman’s risk fracture risk is and determine if she should stay on the drug longer,” Dr. Lo emphasized.
 

Limitations: Subgroups not identified, adherence hard to assess

The uncertainty of any benefit of treatment with bisphosphonates beyond 5 years is further reflected in U.S. recommendations – the Food and Drug Administration has concluded on the basis of pooled data from the extension phase of major clinical trials that any advantages of treatment beyond 3-5 years are unclear.

Key limitations of the current study include the fact that the incidence of hip fracture was not evaluated in low-risk vs. high-risk subgroups; therefore, “these findings may not be applicable to older women at higher risk of osteoporotic fracture,” the authors wrote.

Furthermore, the study did not assess outcomes of fractures other than hip fractures, such as vertebral fractures, they noted.

Dr. Adler pointed out that another limitation is that adherence in the trial was defined as taking 60% of prescribed pills.

“I think this is the biggest weakness with the study,” he said. “Particularly with medications like oral bisphosphonates that don’t really make patients feel any different, it’s a real challenge to make sure patients continue to take these drugs properly.”

The findings should give some reassurance for patients who take a break from the drugs after 5 years. However, reassessment of their risk is critical, Dr. Adler reiterated.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal, and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Adler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women treated with oral bisphosphonate drugs for osteoporosis for 5 years get no additional benefit – in terms of hip fracture risk – if the treatment is extended for another 5 years, new research shows.

Raycat/Getty Images

“We found that hip fracture risk in women did not differ if women stopped bisphosphonate use after 5 years or stayed on the medication for 10 years,” coauthor Joan C. Lo, MD, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, said in an interview.

The new study, published Dec. 7 in JAMA Network Open, did show a small benefit in continuing the treatment through 7 years vs. 5 years, but it wasn’t clear if this was significant.

“Whether there is a benefit to staying on the drug for 7 years needs to be further studied in randomized trials,” Dr. Lo stressed.

It is well established that oral bisphosphonates are effective in reducing the risk for fracture within the first 3-5 years of treatment; however, evidence on the effects of treatment beyond 5 years is lacking.

The most recent guidance from the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) on the issue, which were released in 2015, recommends continuation of bisphosphonates beyond 5 years for high-risk patients, but it recommends a “drug holiday” for low-risk patients.
 

Study adds important new evidence

However, that guidance acknowledges that data are limited regarding long-term use. This large new study adds important new evidence to the discussion, Robert A. Adler, MD, who was a member of the ASBMR Task Force for the recent guidance, said in an interview.

“[With the lack of recent research,] this new study from Kaiser Permanente is of great interest,” said Dr. Adler, chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Central Virginia Veterans Affairs Health Care System and professor of internal medicine and of epidemiology at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

“It is new data and suggests we might temper our enthusiasm for long-term treatment with bisphosphonates,” he said.

“Importantly, it is the first large observational trial and is closer to a real-world setting than a randomized controlled trial,” he said.

But, Dr. Adler emphasized: “The take-home message is that while this suggests that patients can probably be given a drug holiday for a couple of years ... they should be retested, and if they appear to be at an increased risk of fracture, they probably should restart again.

“Osteoporosis is a chronic disorder,” he emphasized. “It isn’t cured by any of our treatments, and as people get older, they are at a higher fracture risk.

“So we really need to follow our patients for a lifetime and reassess their fracture risk every couple of years – whether they are still on therapy or on a drug holiday.”
 

Possible that 7 years is better than 5 but remains to be proven

The new study involved data from Kaiser Permanente Northern and Southern California on 29,685 women who had completed 5 years of treatment with oral bisphosphonates, including alendronate, risedronate, or ibandronate, between 2002 and 2014.

Among the women, 11,105 (37%) continued taking the drugs beyond 5 years to 7 years, and 2,725 (9.2%) completed a total of 10 years of treatment.

Their median age was 71. Among those for whom bone mineral density data were available, 37% had osteoporosis after the first 5 years of treatment.

During these 5 years of treatment, 507 hip fractures occurred.

The cumulative incidence of hip fracture among for those who discontinued study therapy at entry, i.e., those who underwent treatment for 5 years, was 23.0 per 1,000 individuals.

After 7 years of treatment, the rate was 20.8 per 1000. For those who continued therapy for 10 years, the rate was 26.8 per 1000 individuals.

The rate in the 7-year treatment group was based on patients taking a 6-month drug holiday after the initial 5 years, but the results are hard to interpret, Dr. Lo said.

“It’s possible that 7 years is better than 5, but this is not a randomized trial, and some of the data analyses done in the study suggest more research should be done to look at a benefit after 7 years.

“At the end of the day, doctors and women need to decide at 5 years what an individual woman’s risk fracture risk is and determine if she should stay on the drug longer,” Dr. Lo emphasized.
 

Limitations: Subgroups not identified, adherence hard to assess

The uncertainty of any benefit of treatment with bisphosphonates beyond 5 years is further reflected in U.S. recommendations – the Food and Drug Administration has concluded on the basis of pooled data from the extension phase of major clinical trials that any advantages of treatment beyond 3-5 years are unclear.

Key limitations of the current study include the fact that the incidence of hip fracture was not evaluated in low-risk vs. high-risk subgroups; therefore, “these findings may not be applicable to older women at higher risk of osteoporotic fracture,” the authors wrote.

Furthermore, the study did not assess outcomes of fractures other than hip fractures, such as vertebral fractures, they noted.

Dr. Adler pointed out that another limitation is that adherence in the trial was defined as taking 60% of prescribed pills.

“I think this is the biggest weakness with the study,” he said. “Particularly with medications like oral bisphosphonates that don’t really make patients feel any different, it’s a real challenge to make sure patients continue to take these drugs properly.”

The findings should give some reassurance for patients who take a break from the drugs after 5 years. However, reassessment of their risk is critical, Dr. Adler reiterated.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal, and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Adler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women treated with oral bisphosphonate drugs for osteoporosis for 5 years get no additional benefit – in terms of hip fracture risk – if the treatment is extended for another 5 years, new research shows.

Raycat/Getty Images

“We found that hip fracture risk in women did not differ if women stopped bisphosphonate use after 5 years or stayed on the medication for 10 years,” coauthor Joan C. Lo, MD, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, said in an interview.

The new study, published Dec. 7 in JAMA Network Open, did show a small benefit in continuing the treatment through 7 years vs. 5 years, but it wasn’t clear if this was significant.

“Whether there is a benefit to staying on the drug for 7 years needs to be further studied in randomized trials,” Dr. Lo stressed.

It is well established that oral bisphosphonates are effective in reducing the risk for fracture within the first 3-5 years of treatment; however, evidence on the effects of treatment beyond 5 years is lacking.

The most recent guidance from the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) on the issue, which were released in 2015, recommends continuation of bisphosphonates beyond 5 years for high-risk patients, but it recommends a “drug holiday” for low-risk patients.
 

Study adds important new evidence

However, that guidance acknowledges that data are limited regarding long-term use. This large new study adds important new evidence to the discussion, Robert A. Adler, MD, who was a member of the ASBMR Task Force for the recent guidance, said in an interview.

“[With the lack of recent research,] this new study from Kaiser Permanente is of great interest,” said Dr. Adler, chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Central Virginia Veterans Affairs Health Care System and professor of internal medicine and of epidemiology at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

“It is new data and suggests we might temper our enthusiasm for long-term treatment with bisphosphonates,” he said.

“Importantly, it is the first large observational trial and is closer to a real-world setting than a randomized controlled trial,” he said.

But, Dr. Adler emphasized: “The take-home message is that while this suggests that patients can probably be given a drug holiday for a couple of years ... they should be retested, and if they appear to be at an increased risk of fracture, they probably should restart again.

“Osteoporosis is a chronic disorder,” he emphasized. “It isn’t cured by any of our treatments, and as people get older, they are at a higher fracture risk.

“So we really need to follow our patients for a lifetime and reassess their fracture risk every couple of years – whether they are still on therapy or on a drug holiday.”
 

Possible that 7 years is better than 5 but remains to be proven

The new study involved data from Kaiser Permanente Northern and Southern California on 29,685 women who had completed 5 years of treatment with oral bisphosphonates, including alendronate, risedronate, or ibandronate, between 2002 and 2014.

Among the women, 11,105 (37%) continued taking the drugs beyond 5 years to 7 years, and 2,725 (9.2%) completed a total of 10 years of treatment.

Their median age was 71. Among those for whom bone mineral density data were available, 37% had osteoporosis after the first 5 years of treatment.

During these 5 years of treatment, 507 hip fractures occurred.

The cumulative incidence of hip fracture among for those who discontinued study therapy at entry, i.e., those who underwent treatment for 5 years, was 23.0 per 1,000 individuals.

After 7 years of treatment, the rate was 20.8 per 1000. For those who continued therapy for 10 years, the rate was 26.8 per 1000 individuals.

The rate in the 7-year treatment group was based on patients taking a 6-month drug holiday after the initial 5 years, but the results are hard to interpret, Dr. Lo said.

“It’s possible that 7 years is better than 5, but this is not a randomized trial, and some of the data analyses done in the study suggest more research should be done to look at a benefit after 7 years.

“At the end of the day, doctors and women need to decide at 5 years what an individual woman’s risk fracture risk is and determine if she should stay on the drug longer,” Dr. Lo emphasized.
 

Limitations: Subgroups not identified, adherence hard to assess

The uncertainty of any benefit of treatment with bisphosphonates beyond 5 years is further reflected in U.S. recommendations – the Food and Drug Administration has concluded on the basis of pooled data from the extension phase of major clinical trials that any advantages of treatment beyond 3-5 years are unclear.

Key limitations of the current study include the fact that the incidence of hip fracture was not evaluated in low-risk vs. high-risk subgroups; therefore, “these findings may not be applicable to older women at higher risk of osteoporotic fracture,” the authors wrote.

Furthermore, the study did not assess outcomes of fractures other than hip fractures, such as vertebral fractures, they noted.

Dr. Adler pointed out that another limitation is that adherence in the trial was defined as taking 60% of prescribed pills.

“I think this is the biggest weakness with the study,” he said. “Particularly with medications like oral bisphosphonates that don’t really make patients feel any different, it’s a real challenge to make sure patients continue to take these drugs properly.”

The findings should give some reassurance for patients who take a break from the drugs after 5 years. However, reassessment of their risk is critical, Dr. Adler reiterated.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal, and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Adler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An influential federal advisory panel on Dec. 20 voted to recommend that the elderly and certain essential workers be the next group of Americans to get access to limited doses of COVID-19 vaccine.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention voted 13-1 for the recommendation. This builds on ACIP’s initial recommendation about which groups should be in the first wave of vaccinations, described as Phase 1a.

ACIP earlier recommended that Phase 1a include U.S. health care workers, a group of about 21 million people, and residents of long-term care facilities, a group of about 3 million.

On Dec. 20, ACIP said the next priority group, Phase 1b, should consist of what it called frontline essential workers, a group of about 30 million, and adults aged 75 years and older, a group of about 21 million. When overlap between the groups is taken into account, Phase 1b covers about 49 million people, according to the CDC.

Phase 1c then would include adults aged 65-74 years (a group of about 32 million), adults aged 16-64 years with high-risk medical conditions (a group of about 110 million), and essential workers who did not qualify for inclusion in Phase 1b (a group of about 57 million). With the overlap, Phase 1c would cover about 129 million.

The Food and Drug Administration recently granted emergency use authorizations for two COVID-19 vaccines, one developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and another from Moderna. Other companies, including Johnson & Johnson, have advanced their potential rival COVID-19 vaccines into late-stages of testing. To date, about 2.83 million doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine have been distributed and 556,208 doses have been administered, according to the CDC.

But there will likely still be a period of months when competition for limited doses of COVID-19 vaccine will trigger difficult decisions. Current estimates indicate there will be enough supply to provide COVID-19 vaccines for 20 million people in December, 30 million people in January, and 50 million people in February, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

State governments and health systems will take ACIP’s recommendations into account as they roll out the initial supplies of COVID-19 vaccines.

There’s clearly wide latitude in these decisions. Recently, for example, many members of Congress tweeted photos of themselves getting COVID-19 vaccines, despite not falling into ACIP’s description of the Phase 1 group.
 

Difficult choices

All ACIP members described the Dec. 20 vote as a difficult decision. It forced them to choose among segments of the U.S. population that could benefit from early access to the limited supply of COVID-19 vaccines.

“For every group we add, it means we subtract a group. For every group we subtract, it means they don’t get the vaccine” for some months, said ACIP member Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “It’s incredibly humbling and heartbreaking.”

ACIP member Henry Bernstein, DO, who cast the lone dissenting vote, said he agreed with most of the panel’s recommendation. He said he fully supported the inclusion of adults aged 75 years and older and essential frontline workers in the second wave, Phase 1b. But he voted no because the data on COVID-19 morbidity and mortality for adults aged 65-74 years is similar enough to the older group to warrant their inclusion in the first wave.

“Therefore, inclusion of the 65- to 74-year-old group in Phase 1b made more sense to me,” said Dr. Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in New York.

As defined by the CDC, frontline essential workers included in phase 1b will be those commonly called “first responders,” such as firefighters and police officers. Also in this group are teachers, support staff, daycare providers, and those employed in grocery and agriculture industries. Others in this group would include U.S. Postal Service employees and transit workers.

ACIP panelists noted the difficulties that will emerge as government officials and leaders of health care organizations move to apply their guidance to real-world decisions about distributing a limited supply of COVID-19 vaccine. There’s a potential to worsen existing disparities in access to health care, as people with more income may find it easier to obtain proof that they qualify as having a high-risk condition, said José Romero, MD, the chair of ACIP.

Many people “don’t have access to medical care and can’t come up with a doctor’s note that says, ‘I have diabetes,’ ” he said.

ACIP panelists also noted in their deliberations that people may technically qualify for a priority group but have little risk, such as someone with a chronic medical condition who works from home.

And the risk for COVID-19 remains serious even for those who will ultimately fall into the phase 2 for vaccination. Young adults have suffered serious complications following COVID-19, such as stroke, that may alter their lives dramatically, ACIP member Dr. Talbot said, adding that she is reminded of this in her work.

“We need to be very cautious about saying, ‘Young adults will be fine,’ ” she said. “I spent the past week on back-up clinical call and have read these charts and have cried every day.”

The three ACIP members who had conflicts that prevented their voting were Robert L. Atmar, MD, who said he had participated in COVID-19 trials, including research on the Moderna vaccine; Sharon E. Frey, MD, who said that she had been involved with research on COVID-19 vaccines, including Moderna’s; and Paul Hunter, MD, who said he has received a grant from Pfizer for pneumococcal vaccines. The other panel members have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

An influential federal advisory panel on Dec. 20 voted to recommend that the elderly and certain essential workers be the next group of Americans to get access to limited doses of COVID-19 vaccine.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention voted 13-1 for the recommendation. This builds on ACIP’s initial recommendation about which groups should be in the first wave of vaccinations, described as Phase 1a.

ACIP earlier recommended that Phase 1a include U.S. health care workers, a group of about 21 million people, and residents of long-term care facilities, a group of about 3 million.

On Dec. 20, ACIP said the next priority group, Phase 1b, should consist of what it called frontline essential workers, a group of about 30 million, and adults aged 75 years and older, a group of about 21 million. When overlap between the groups is taken into account, Phase 1b covers about 49 million people, according to the CDC.

Phase 1c then would include adults aged 65-74 years (a group of about 32 million), adults aged 16-64 years with high-risk medical conditions (a group of about 110 million), and essential workers who did not qualify for inclusion in Phase 1b (a group of about 57 million). With the overlap, Phase 1c would cover about 129 million.

The Food and Drug Administration recently granted emergency use authorizations for two COVID-19 vaccines, one developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and another from Moderna. Other companies, including Johnson & Johnson, have advanced their potential rival COVID-19 vaccines into late-stages of testing. To date, about 2.83 million doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine have been distributed and 556,208 doses have been administered, according to the CDC.

But there will likely still be a period of months when competition for limited doses of COVID-19 vaccine will trigger difficult decisions. Current estimates indicate there will be enough supply to provide COVID-19 vaccines for 20 million people in December, 30 million people in January, and 50 million people in February, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

State governments and health systems will take ACIP’s recommendations into account as they roll out the initial supplies of COVID-19 vaccines.

There’s clearly wide latitude in these decisions. Recently, for example, many members of Congress tweeted photos of themselves getting COVID-19 vaccines, despite not falling into ACIP’s description of the Phase 1 group.
 

Difficult choices

All ACIP members described the Dec. 20 vote as a difficult decision. It forced them to choose among segments of the U.S. population that could benefit from early access to the limited supply of COVID-19 vaccines.

“For every group we add, it means we subtract a group. For every group we subtract, it means they don’t get the vaccine” for some months, said ACIP member Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “It’s incredibly humbling and heartbreaking.”

ACIP member Henry Bernstein, DO, who cast the lone dissenting vote, said he agreed with most of the panel’s recommendation. He said he fully supported the inclusion of adults aged 75 years and older and essential frontline workers in the second wave, Phase 1b. But he voted no because the data on COVID-19 morbidity and mortality for adults aged 65-74 years is similar enough to the older group to warrant their inclusion in the first wave.

“Therefore, inclusion of the 65- to 74-year-old group in Phase 1b made more sense to me,” said Dr. Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in New York.

As defined by the CDC, frontline essential workers included in phase 1b will be those commonly called “first responders,” such as firefighters and police officers. Also in this group are teachers, support staff, daycare providers, and those employed in grocery and agriculture industries. Others in this group would include U.S. Postal Service employees and transit workers.

ACIP panelists noted the difficulties that will emerge as government officials and leaders of health care organizations move to apply their guidance to real-world decisions about distributing a limited supply of COVID-19 vaccine. There’s a potential to worsen existing disparities in access to health care, as people with more income may find it easier to obtain proof that they qualify as having a high-risk condition, said José Romero, MD, the chair of ACIP.

Many people “don’t have access to medical care and can’t come up with a doctor’s note that says, ‘I have diabetes,’ ” he said.

ACIP panelists also noted in their deliberations that people may technically qualify for a priority group but have little risk, such as someone with a chronic medical condition who works from home.

And the risk for COVID-19 remains serious even for those who will ultimately fall into the phase 2 for vaccination. Young adults have suffered serious complications following COVID-19, such as stroke, that may alter their lives dramatically, ACIP member Dr. Talbot said, adding that she is reminded of this in her work.

“We need to be very cautious about saying, ‘Young adults will be fine,’ ” she said. “I spent the past week on back-up clinical call and have read these charts and have cried every day.”

The three ACIP members who had conflicts that prevented their voting were Robert L. Atmar, MD, who said he had participated in COVID-19 trials, including research on the Moderna vaccine; Sharon E. Frey, MD, who said that she had been involved with research on COVID-19 vaccines, including Moderna’s; and Paul Hunter, MD, who said he has received a grant from Pfizer for pneumococcal vaccines. The other panel members have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

An influential federal advisory panel on Dec. 20 voted to recommend that the elderly and certain essential workers be the next group of Americans to get access to limited doses of COVID-19 vaccine.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention voted 13-1 for the recommendation. This builds on ACIP’s initial recommendation about which groups should be in the first wave of vaccinations, described as Phase 1a.

ACIP earlier recommended that Phase 1a include U.S. health care workers, a group of about 21 million people, and residents of long-term care facilities, a group of about 3 million.

On Dec. 20, ACIP said the next priority group, Phase 1b, should consist of what it called frontline essential workers, a group of about 30 million, and adults aged 75 years and older, a group of about 21 million. When overlap between the groups is taken into account, Phase 1b covers about 49 million people, according to the CDC.

Phase 1c then would include adults aged 65-74 years (a group of about 32 million), adults aged 16-64 years with high-risk medical conditions (a group of about 110 million), and essential workers who did not qualify for inclusion in Phase 1b (a group of about 57 million). With the overlap, Phase 1c would cover about 129 million.

The Food and Drug Administration recently granted emergency use authorizations for two COVID-19 vaccines, one developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and another from Moderna. Other companies, including Johnson & Johnson, have advanced their potential rival COVID-19 vaccines into late-stages of testing. To date, about 2.83 million doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine have been distributed and 556,208 doses have been administered, according to the CDC.

But there will likely still be a period of months when competition for limited doses of COVID-19 vaccine will trigger difficult decisions. Current estimates indicate there will be enough supply to provide COVID-19 vaccines for 20 million people in December, 30 million people in January, and 50 million people in February, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

State governments and health systems will take ACIP’s recommendations into account as they roll out the initial supplies of COVID-19 vaccines.

There’s clearly wide latitude in these decisions. Recently, for example, many members of Congress tweeted photos of themselves getting COVID-19 vaccines, despite not falling into ACIP’s description of the Phase 1 group.
 

Difficult choices

All ACIP members described the Dec. 20 vote as a difficult decision. It forced them to choose among segments of the U.S. population that could benefit from early access to the limited supply of COVID-19 vaccines.

“For every group we add, it means we subtract a group. For every group we subtract, it means they don’t get the vaccine” for some months, said ACIP member Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “It’s incredibly humbling and heartbreaking.”

ACIP member Henry Bernstein, DO, who cast the lone dissenting vote, said he agreed with most of the panel’s recommendation. He said he fully supported the inclusion of adults aged 75 years and older and essential frontline workers in the second wave, Phase 1b. But he voted no because the data on COVID-19 morbidity and mortality for adults aged 65-74 years is similar enough to the older group to warrant their inclusion in the first wave.

“Therefore, inclusion of the 65- to 74-year-old group in Phase 1b made more sense to me,” said Dr. Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in New York.

As defined by the CDC, frontline essential workers included in phase 1b will be those commonly called “first responders,” such as firefighters and police officers. Also in this group are teachers, support staff, daycare providers, and those employed in grocery and agriculture industries. Others in this group would include U.S. Postal Service employees and transit workers.

ACIP panelists noted the difficulties that will emerge as government officials and leaders of health care organizations move to apply their guidance to real-world decisions about distributing a limited supply of COVID-19 vaccine. There’s a potential to worsen existing disparities in access to health care, as people with more income may find it easier to obtain proof that they qualify as having a high-risk condition, said José Romero, MD, the chair of ACIP.

Many people “don’t have access to medical care and can’t come up with a doctor’s note that says, ‘I have diabetes,’ ” he said.

ACIP panelists also noted in their deliberations that people may technically qualify for a priority group but have little risk, such as someone with a chronic medical condition who works from home.

And the risk for COVID-19 remains serious even for those who will ultimately fall into the phase 2 for vaccination. Young adults have suffered serious complications following COVID-19, such as stroke, that may alter their lives dramatically, ACIP member Dr. Talbot said, adding that she is reminded of this in her work.

“We need to be very cautious about saying, ‘Young adults will be fine,’ ” she said. “I spent the past week on back-up clinical call and have read these charts and have cried every day.”

The three ACIP members who had conflicts that prevented their voting were Robert L. Atmar, MD, who said he had participated in COVID-19 trials, including research on the Moderna vaccine; Sharon E. Frey, MD, who said that she had been involved with research on COVID-19 vaccines, including Moderna’s; and Paul Hunter, MD, who said he has received a grant from Pfizer for pneumococcal vaccines. The other panel members have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Sleep medications for older patients who report sleep problems may not be the best treatment given growing evidence of the link between these medications and the risk of incident dementia.

Adults aged 65 years and older who used sleep medications 5-7 days a week demonstrated a 30% increased risk of dementia, compared with those who did not use sleep medications, findings from a prospective study of 6,373 individuals show.

Adults aged 65 and older report a higher burden of sleep problems than other age groups, but major medical associations discourage the use of sleep medications by older adults because of growing evidence of a link between sleep medication use and cognitive decline, wrote Rebecca Robbins, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. However, data on this association among adults in the United States are limited, they said.

In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers surveyed 6,373 adults aged 65 years and older who were enrolled in the nationally representative National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS). The majority of the participants were non-Hispanic White (71%), 59% were women, and 21% ranged in age from 70 to 74 years.

Participants responded to questions about routine sleep medication use. Routine was defined as “most nights” or “every night.” The data were collected for an 8-year period from 2011 to 2018. The study began in 2011, with a core interview administered annually.

Approximately 15% of the study population reported routine use of sleep medications. Overall, routine use of sleep medication was significantly associated with risk of incident dementia (hazard ratio, 1.30; P < .01) after controlling for multiple variables including age, sex, education level, and chronic conditions.

Dementia screening was conducted by participants rating their memory and then performing a memory-related activity (immediate and delayed 10-word recall) and other exercises to assess executive function and orientation. A separate eight-item informant screener was performed for patient proxies. The researcher noted, “Sensitivity of the NHATS probable dementia screening measure has been determined in previous research to be 66%, and specificity is 87%, with respect to a clinical dementia diagnosis.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports, the lack of data on type or dose of sleep medication, and lack of data on the indication for the prescription, the researchers noted.

“Also, sleep medication use leads to worse performance on cognitive testing, such as the questionnaires used to screen for dementia in this study, and therefore could have resulted in a false diagnosis of dementia,” they added.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, nationally representative study population and support the need for quality geriatric care, the researchers said.

“Our findings provide further support and evidence that sleep medications are all too commonly administered, yet associated with greater risk for incident dementia, and that the U.S. health care system is in need of creative solutions for addressing poor sleep among older individuals,” they concluded.
 

Implications and alternatives

The study is important as the number of aging Americans increases, said Carolyn M. D’Ambrosio, MD, FCCP, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an interview. “In the elderly, inability to fall asleep or stay asleep are common issues that are brought to a health care provider,” she said. Dr. D’Ambrosio said she was not surprised by the study findings “as elderly patients often have sleep issues and sometimes a well-meaning health care provider gives them sleep medication to help. We have known that some of these sleep medications such as benzodiazepines affect cognitive performance,” she said.

Dr. D’Ambrosio said she avoids prescribing sleep medications for older adults if possible. “A deep dive into sleep habits, environment, and other things that disrupt sleep often gets to the problem rather than just masking it with a sleep medication,” she noted. Alternatives to improve sleep in older adults include exercise, exposure to bright light during the day, and good healthy sleep habits, all of which contribute to improved sleep in the elderly, said Dr. D’Ambrosio. She also recommends screening older adults for other issues that affect sleep, such as chronic pain.

The current study highlighted the association between sleep medication use and dementia, but it does not show causation, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “So much more needs to be done to determine whether the sleep medications are causing worsening cognitive function long term, or if the dementia is starting but not yet diagnosed and the sleep medication is given but not the cause of the dementia, she noted.
 

Research gaps and treatment strategies

Older adults experiencing sleep difficulties may try various medications including pharmacologics (e.g., benzodiazepines), over-the-counter agents, such as diphenhydramine or doxylamine preparations, and/or herbal and nutritional supplements such as valerian or melatonin, said Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, FCCP, of the University of Massachusetts Medical School–Baystate, Springfield, in an interview. “However, sleep medications, particularly benzodiazepines, are strongly discouraged by major medical associations including the American Geriatrics Society in part because of the growing evidence that use of sleep medications is associated with cognitive impairment and decline,” she said.

The current study results contribute to previous work demonstrating that both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic sleep medication, although commonly administered, is associated with subsequent adverse outcomes in older adults, Dr. Farmer said. This association sets the stage for creative and different solutions for addressing poor sleep among older adults, such as behavioral treatments including cognitive-behavioral therapy, she noted.

Dr. Farmer said, “Areas for future research include exploring the causal link between prescription and/or over-the-counter sleep medication use and incident dementia in a randomized controlled trial,” she added.

“Another interesting opportunity for future research is to explore the indications for sleep medications among older adults since it has been shown in the general population that sleep difficulties represent only 12% of the indication for sleep medication prescriptions,” Dr. Farmer noted. “Future research could examine the strength of the underlying motivation to use sleep medication even in light of suggested long-term effects, and the effectiveness of other measures to avoid or minimize sleep difficulties,” she said.

“My experience is that the majority of ambulatory patients recently seen in sleep clinic want to avoid long-term use of sleep medications and will ask what other measures can be tried to consistently achieve a good night’s sleep without medication use,” Dr. Farmer said. “If medications are used, patients would rather try melatonin than a benzodiazepine. Many patients who come to sleep clinic with sleep medications already prescribed and are subsequently found to have sleep apnea and/or restless legs find that they no longer need sleep medication when these other medical conditions are appropriately diagnosed and managed,” she explained. “Finally, many patients tell me they feel less energetic upon awakening, almost feel hung over, and express being less sharp cognitively when taking pharmacologic sleep medication, whether for short or long periods of time, and therefore they want to avoid continuing with sleep medication use,” she said.

Dr. Farmer’s strategy for developing alternatives to sleep medications in older adults includes taking a careful history, including a complete list of medical problems, review of medications, and a thorough sleep history including usual time of sleep onset, awake time, and the frequency of daytime naps. “Tips for improving the quality of nighttime sleep may include adequately treating pain and other medical conditions such as heartburn, sleep apnea, and restless legs, creating a soothing environment to promote sleep by eliminating noise and bright lights, avoiding stimulant medications and substances such as caffeine and nicotine before bedtime, avoiding excessive amounts of alcohol, avoiding diuretics before bedtime, encouraging physical activity during the day, spending time in the sunlight as much as possible to help regulate the sleep cycle, limiting daytime naps, and establishing a regular sleep schedule,” she said.

The study was supported by National Institutes of Health awards K01HL150339, U54MD000538, K07AG052685, R01AG056531, R01AG056031. Lead author Dr. Robbins had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. D’Ambrosio disclosed serving as a section editor for sleep medicine for Dynamed and owning a patent on a circadian programming device. Dr. Farmer had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Robbins R et al. Sleep Med. 2020 Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2020.11.004.

Sleep medications for older patients who report sleep problems may not be the best treatment given growing evidence of the link between these medications and the risk of incident dementia.

Adults aged 65 years and older who used sleep medications 5-7 days a week demonstrated a 30% increased risk of dementia, compared with those who did not use sleep medications, findings from a prospective study of 6,373 individuals show.

Adults aged 65 and older report a higher burden of sleep problems than other age groups, but major medical associations discourage the use of sleep medications by older adults because of growing evidence of a link between sleep medication use and cognitive decline, wrote Rebecca Robbins, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. However, data on this association among adults in the United States are limited, they said.

In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers surveyed 6,373 adults aged 65 years and older who were enrolled in the nationally representative National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS). The majority of the participants were non-Hispanic White (71%), 59% were women, and 21% ranged in age from 70 to 74 years.

Participants responded to questions about routine sleep medication use. Routine was defined as “most nights” or “every night.” The data were collected for an 8-year period from 2011 to 2018. The study began in 2011, with a core interview administered annually.

Approximately 15% of the study population reported routine use of sleep medications. Overall, routine use of sleep medication was significantly associated with risk of incident dementia (hazard ratio, 1.30; P < .01) after controlling for multiple variables including age, sex, education level, and chronic conditions.

Dementia screening was conducted by participants rating their memory and then performing a memory-related activity (immediate and delayed 10-word recall) and other exercises to assess executive function and orientation. A separate eight-item informant screener was performed for patient proxies. The researcher noted, “Sensitivity of the NHATS probable dementia screening measure has been determined in previous research to be 66%, and specificity is 87%, with respect to a clinical dementia diagnosis.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports, the lack of data on type or dose of sleep medication, and lack of data on the indication for the prescription, the researchers noted.

“Also, sleep medication use leads to worse performance on cognitive testing, such as the questionnaires used to screen for dementia in this study, and therefore could have resulted in a false diagnosis of dementia,” they added.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, nationally representative study population and support the need for quality geriatric care, the researchers said.

“Our findings provide further support and evidence that sleep medications are all too commonly administered, yet associated with greater risk for incident dementia, and that the U.S. health care system is in need of creative solutions for addressing poor sleep among older individuals,” they concluded.
 

Implications and alternatives

The study is important as the number of aging Americans increases, said Carolyn M. D’Ambrosio, MD, FCCP, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an interview. “In the elderly, inability to fall asleep or stay asleep are common issues that are brought to a health care provider,” she said. Dr. D’Ambrosio said she was not surprised by the study findings “as elderly patients often have sleep issues and sometimes a well-meaning health care provider gives them sleep medication to help. We have known that some of these sleep medications such as benzodiazepines affect cognitive performance,” she said.

Dr. D’Ambrosio said she avoids prescribing sleep medications for older adults if possible. “A deep dive into sleep habits, environment, and other things that disrupt sleep often gets to the problem rather than just masking it with a sleep medication,” she noted. Alternatives to improve sleep in older adults include exercise, exposure to bright light during the day, and good healthy sleep habits, all of which contribute to improved sleep in the elderly, said Dr. D’Ambrosio. She also recommends screening older adults for other issues that affect sleep, such as chronic pain.

The current study highlighted the association between sleep medication use and dementia, but it does not show causation, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “So much more needs to be done to determine whether the sleep medications are causing worsening cognitive function long term, or if the dementia is starting but not yet diagnosed and the sleep medication is given but not the cause of the dementia, she noted.
 

Research gaps and treatment strategies

Older adults experiencing sleep difficulties may try various medications including pharmacologics (e.g., benzodiazepines), over-the-counter agents, such as diphenhydramine or doxylamine preparations, and/or herbal and nutritional supplements such as valerian or melatonin, said Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, FCCP, of the University of Massachusetts Medical School–Baystate, Springfield, in an interview. “However, sleep medications, particularly benzodiazepines, are strongly discouraged by major medical associations including the American Geriatrics Society in part because of the growing evidence that use of sleep medications is associated with cognitive impairment and decline,” she said.

The current study results contribute to previous work demonstrating that both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic sleep medication, although commonly administered, is associated with subsequent adverse outcomes in older adults, Dr. Farmer said. This association sets the stage for creative and different solutions for addressing poor sleep among older adults, such as behavioral treatments including cognitive-behavioral therapy, she noted.

Dr. Farmer said, “Areas for future research include exploring the causal link between prescription and/or over-the-counter sleep medication use and incident dementia in a randomized controlled trial,” she added.

“Another interesting opportunity for future research is to explore the indications for sleep medications among older adults since it has been shown in the general population that sleep difficulties represent only 12% of the indication for sleep medication prescriptions,” Dr. Farmer noted. “Future research could examine the strength of the underlying motivation to use sleep medication even in light of suggested long-term effects, and the effectiveness of other measures to avoid or minimize sleep difficulties,” she said.

“My experience is that the majority of ambulatory patients recently seen in sleep clinic want to avoid long-term use of sleep medications and will ask what other measures can be tried to consistently achieve a good night’s sleep without medication use,” Dr. Farmer said. “If medications are used, patients would rather try melatonin than a benzodiazepine. Many patients who come to sleep clinic with sleep medications already prescribed and are subsequently found to have sleep apnea and/or restless legs find that they no longer need sleep medication when these other medical conditions are appropriately diagnosed and managed,” she explained. “Finally, many patients tell me they feel less energetic upon awakening, almost feel hung over, and express being less sharp cognitively when taking pharmacologic sleep medication, whether for short or long periods of time, and therefore they want to avoid continuing with sleep medication use,” she said.

Dr. Farmer’s strategy for developing alternatives to sleep medications in older adults includes taking a careful history, including a complete list of medical problems, review of medications, and a thorough sleep history including usual time of sleep onset, awake time, and the frequency of daytime naps. “Tips for improving the quality of nighttime sleep may include adequately treating pain and other medical conditions such as heartburn, sleep apnea, and restless legs, creating a soothing environment to promote sleep by eliminating noise and bright lights, avoiding stimulant medications and substances such as caffeine and nicotine before bedtime, avoiding excessive amounts of alcohol, avoiding diuretics before bedtime, encouraging physical activity during the day, spending time in the sunlight as much as possible to help regulate the sleep cycle, limiting daytime naps, and establishing a regular sleep schedule,” she said.

The study was supported by National Institutes of Health awards K01HL150339, U54MD000538, K07AG052685, R01AG056531, R01AG056031. Lead author Dr. Robbins had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. D’Ambrosio disclosed serving as a section editor for sleep medicine for Dynamed and owning a patent on a circadian programming device. Dr. Farmer had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Robbins R et al. Sleep Med. 2020 Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2020.11.004.

Sleep medications for older patients who report sleep problems may not be the best treatment given growing evidence of the link between these medications and the risk of incident dementia.

Adults aged 65 years and older who used sleep medications 5-7 days a week demonstrated a 30% increased risk of dementia, compared with those who did not use sleep medications, findings from a prospective study of 6,373 individuals show.

Adults aged 65 and older report a higher burden of sleep problems than other age groups, but major medical associations discourage the use of sleep medications by older adults because of growing evidence of a link between sleep medication use and cognitive decline, wrote Rebecca Robbins, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. However, data on this association among adults in the United States are limited, they said.

In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers surveyed 6,373 adults aged 65 years and older who were enrolled in the nationally representative National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS). The majority of the participants were non-Hispanic White (71%), 59% were women, and 21% ranged in age from 70 to 74 years.

Participants responded to questions about routine sleep medication use. Routine was defined as “most nights” or “every night.” The data were collected for an 8-year period from 2011 to 2018. The study began in 2011, with a core interview administered annually.

Approximately 15% of the study population reported routine use of sleep medications. Overall, routine use of sleep medication was significantly associated with risk of incident dementia (hazard ratio, 1.30; P < .01) after controlling for multiple variables including age, sex, education level, and chronic conditions.

Dementia screening was conducted by participants rating their memory and then performing a memory-related activity (immediate and delayed 10-word recall) and other exercises to assess executive function and orientation. A separate eight-item informant screener was performed for patient proxies. The researcher noted, “Sensitivity of the NHATS probable dementia screening measure has been determined in previous research to be 66%, and specificity is 87%, with respect to a clinical dementia diagnosis.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports, the lack of data on type or dose of sleep medication, and lack of data on the indication for the prescription, the researchers noted.

“Also, sleep medication use leads to worse performance on cognitive testing, such as the questionnaires used to screen for dementia in this study, and therefore could have resulted in a false diagnosis of dementia,” they added.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, nationally representative study population and support the need for quality geriatric care, the researchers said.

“Our findings provide further support and evidence that sleep medications are all too commonly administered, yet associated with greater risk for incident dementia, and that the U.S. health care system is in need of creative solutions for addressing poor sleep among older individuals,” they concluded.
 

Implications and alternatives

The study is important as the number of aging Americans increases, said Carolyn M. D’Ambrosio, MD, FCCP, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an interview. “In the elderly, inability to fall asleep or stay asleep are common issues that are brought to a health care provider,” she said. Dr. D’Ambrosio said she was not surprised by the study findings “as elderly patients often have sleep issues and sometimes a well-meaning health care provider gives them sleep medication to help. We have known that some of these sleep medications such as benzodiazepines affect cognitive performance,” she said.

Dr. D’Ambrosio said she avoids prescribing sleep medications for older adults if possible. “A deep dive into sleep habits, environment, and other things that disrupt sleep often gets to the problem rather than just masking it with a sleep medication,” she noted. Alternatives to improve sleep in older adults include exercise, exposure to bright light during the day, and good healthy sleep habits, all of which contribute to improved sleep in the elderly, said Dr. D’Ambrosio. She also recommends screening older adults for other issues that affect sleep, such as chronic pain.

The current study highlighted the association between sleep medication use and dementia, but it does not show causation, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “So much more needs to be done to determine whether the sleep medications are causing worsening cognitive function long term, or if the dementia is starting but not yet diagnosed and the sleep medication is given but not the cause of the dementia, she noted.
 

Research gaps and treatment strategies

Older adults experiencing sleep difficulties may try various medications including pharmacologics (e.g., benzodiazepines), over-the-counter agents, such as diphenhydramine or doxylamine preparations, and/or herbal and nutritional supplements such as valerian or melatonin, said Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, FCCP, of the University of Massachusetts Medical School–Baystate, Springfield, in an interview. “However, sleep medications, particularly benzodiazepines, are strongly discouraged by major medical associations including the American Geriatrics Society in part because of the growing evidence that use of sleep medications is associated with cognitive impairment and decline,” she said.

The current study results contribute to previous work demonstrating that both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic sleep medication, although commonly administered, is associated with subsequent adverse outcomes in older adults, Dr. Farmer said. This association sets the stage for creative and different solutions for addressing poor sleep among older adults, such as behavioral treatments including cognitive-behavioral therapy, she noted.

Dr. Farmer said, “Areas for future research include exploring the causal link between prescription and/or over-the-counter sleep medication use and incident dementia in a randomized controlled trial,” she added.

“Another interesting opportunity for future research is to explore the indications for sleep medications among older adults since it has been shown in the general population that sleep difficulties represent only 12% of the indication for sleep medication prescriptions,” Dr. Farmer noted. “Future research could examine the strength of the underlying motivation to use sleep medication even in light of suggested long-term effects, and the effectiveness of other measures to avoid or minimize sleep difficulties,” she said.

“My experience is that the majority of ambulatory patients recently seen in sleep clinic want to avoid long-term use of sleep medications and will ask what other measures can be tried to consistently achieve a good night’s sleep without medication use,” Dr. Farmer said. “If medications are used, patients would rather try melatonin than a benzodiazepine. Many patients who come to sleep clinic with sleep medications already prescribed and are subsequently found to have sleep apnea and/or restless legs find that they no longer need sleep medication when these other medical conditions are appropriately diagnosed and managed,” she explained. “Finally, many patients tell me they feel less energetic upon awakening, almost feel hung over, and express being less sharp cognitively when taking pharmacologic sleep medication, whether for short or long periods of time, and therefore they want to avoid continuing with sleep medication use,” she said.

Dr. Farmer’s strategy for developing alternatives to sleep medications in older adults includes taking a careful history, including a complete list of medical problems, review of medications, and a thorough sleep history including usual time of sleep onset, awake time, and the frequency of daytime naps. “Tips for improving the quality of nighttime sleep may include adequately treating pain and other medical conditions such as heartburn, sleep apnea, and restless legs, creating a soothing environment to promote sleep by eliminating noise and bright lights, avoiding stimulant medications and substances such as caffeine and nicotine before bedtime, avoiding excessive amounts of alcohol, avoiding diuretics before bedtime, encouraging physical activity during the day, spending time in the sunlight as much as possible to help regulate the sleep cycle, limiting daytime naps, and establishing a regular sleep schedule,” she said.

The study was supported by National Institutes of Health awards K01HL150339, U54MD000538, K07AG052685, R01AG056531, R01AG056031. Lead author Dr. Robbins had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. D’Ambrosio disclosed serving as a section editor for sleep medicine for Dynamed and owning a patent on a circadian programming device. Dr. Farmer had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Robbins R et al. Sleep Med. 2020 Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2020.11.004.

CASE 

Mr. A is a 30-year-old man with neurofibromatosis and myelopathy with associated quadriplegia, complicated by dysphasia and chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure requiring a tracheostomy. He is cared for at home by his very competent mother but requires regular visits with his medical providers for assistance with his complex care needs. Due to logistical challenges, he had been receiving regular home visits even before the ­COVID-19 pandemic.

After estimating the risk of exposure to the patient, Mr. A’s family and his physician’s office staff scheduled a home visit. Before the appointment, the doctor conducted a virtual visit with the patient and family members to screen for COVID-19 infection, which proved negative. The doctor arranged a visit to coincide with Mr. A’s regular appointment with the home health nurse. He invited the patient’s social worker to attend, as well.

The providers donned masks, face shields, and gloves before entering the home. Mr. A’s temperature was checked and was normal. The team completed a physical exam, assessed the patient’s current needs, and refilled prescriptions. The doctor, nurse, and social worker met afterward in the family’s driveway to coordinate plans for the patient’s future care.

This encounter allowed a vulnerable patient with special needs to have access to care while reducing his risk of undesirable exposure. Also, his health care team’s provision of care in the home setting reduced Mr. A’s anxiety and that of his family members.

Home visits have long been an integral part of what it means to be a family physician. In 1930, roughly 40% of all patient-physician encounters in the United States occurred in patients’ homes. By 1980, this number had dropped to < 1%.¹ Still, a 1994 survey of American doctors in 3 primary care specialties revealed that 63% of family physicians, more than the other 2 specialties, still made house calls.² A 2016 analysis of Medicare claims data showed that between 2006 and 2011, only 5% of American doctors overall made house calls on Medicare recipients, but interestingly, the total number of home visits was increasing.³

This resurgence of interest in home health care is due in part to the increasing number of homebound patients in America, which exceeds the number of those in nursing homes.⁴ Further, a growing body of evidence indicates that home visits improve patient outcomes. And finally, many family physicians whose work lives have been centered around a busy office or hospital practice have found satisfaction in once again seeing patients in their own homes.

The COVID-19 pandemic has of course presented unique challenges—and opportunities, too—for home visits, which we discuss at the end of the article.

In the elderly, home visits have reduced functional decline, nursing home admissions, and mortality by 25% to 33%.

Why aren’t more of us making home visits?

For most of us, the decision not to make home visits is simply a matter of time and money. Although Medicare reimbursement for a home visit is typically about 150% that of a comparable office visit,⁵ it’s difficult, if not impossible, to make 2 home visits in the time you could see 3 patients in the office. So, economically it’s a net loss. Furthermore, we tend to feel less comfortable in our patients’ homes than in our offices. We have less control outside our own environment, and what happens away from our office is often less predictable—sometimes to the point that we may be concerned for our safety.

Continue to: So why make home visits at all?

So why make home visits at all?

First and foremost, home visits improve patient outcomes. This is most evident in our more vulnerable patients: newborns and the elderly, those who have been recently hospitalized, and those at risk because of their particular home situation. Multiple studies have shown that, for elders, home visits reduce functional decline, nursing home admissions, and mortality by around 25% to 33%.^6-8 For those at risk of abuse, a recent systematic review showed that home visits reduce intimate partner violence and child abuse.⁹ Another systematic review demonstrated that patients with diabetes who received home visits vs usual care were more likely to show improvements in quality of life.¹⁰ These patients were also more likely to have lower HbA1c levels and lower systolic blood pressure readings.¹⁰ A few caveats apply to these studies:

• all of them targeted “vulnerable” patients
• most studies enlisted interdisciplinary teams and had regular team meetings
• most findings reached significance only after multiple home visits.

A further reason for choosing to become involved in home care is that it builds relationships, understanding, and empathy with our patients. “There is deep symbolism in the home visit.... It says, ‘I care enough about you to leave my power base … to come and see you on your own ground.’”¹¹ And this benefit is 2-way; we also grow to understand and appreciate our patients better, especially if they are different from us culturally or socioeconomically.

Home visits allow the medical team to see challenges the patient has grown accustomed to, and perhaps ones that the patient has deemed too insignificant to mention. For the patient, home visits foster a strong sense of trust with the individual doctor and our health delivery network, and they decrease the need to seek emergency services. Finally, it has been demonstrated that provider satisfaction improves when home visits are incorporated into the work week.¹²

What is the role of community health workers in home-based care?

Community health workers (CHWs), defined as “frontline public health workers who are trusted members of and/or have an unusually close understanding of the community they serve,”¹³ can be an integral part of the home-based care team. Although CHWs have variable amounts of formal training, they have a unique perspective on local health beliefs and practices, which can assist the home-care team in providing culturally competent health care services and reduce health care costs.

In a study of children with asthma in Seattle, Washington, patients were randomized to a group that had 4 home visits by CHWs and a group that received usual care. The group that received home visits demonstrated more asthma symptom–free days, improved quality-of-life scores, and fewer urgent care visits.¹⁴ Furthermore, the intervention was estimated to save approximately $1300 per patient, resulting in a return on investment of 190%. Similarly, in a study comparing inappropriate emergency department (ED) visits between children who received CHW visits and those who did not, patients in the intervention group were significantly less likely to visit the ED for ambulatory complaints (18.2% vs 35.1%; P = .004).¹⁵

Continue to: What is the role of social workersin home-based care?

What is the role of social workersin home-based care?

Social workers can help meet the complex medical and biopsychosocial needs of the homebound population.¹⁶ A study by Cohen et al based in Israel concluded that homebound participants had a significantly higher risk for mortality, higher rates of depression, and difficulty completing instrumental activities of daily living when compared with their non-homebound counterparts.¹⁷

The Mount Sinai (New York) Visiting Doctors Program (MSVD) is a home-based care team that uses social workers to meet the needs of their complex patients.¹⁸ The social workers in the MSVD program provide direct counseling, make referrals to government and community resources, and monitor caregiver burden. Using a combination of measurement tools to assess caregiver burden, Ornstein et al demonstrated that the MSVD program led to a decrease in unmet needs and in caregiver burden.^19,20 Caregiver burnout can be assessed using the Caregiver Burden Inventory, a validated 24-item questionnaire.²¹

What electronic tools are availableto monitor patients at home?

Although expensive in terms of both dollars and personnel time, telemonitoring allows home care providers to receive real-time, updated information regarding their patients.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). One systematic review showed that although telemonitoring of patients with COPD improved quality of life and decreased COPD exacerbations, it did not reduce the risk of hospitalization and, therefore, did not reduce health care costs.²² Telemonitoring in COPD can include transmission of data about spirometry parameters, weight, temperature, blood pressure, sputum color, and 6-minute walk distance.^23,24

Congestive heart failure (CHF). A 2010 Cochrane review found that telemonitoring of patients with CHF reduced all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 0.66; P < .0001).²⁵ The Telemedical Interventional Management in Heart Failure II (TIM-HF2) trial,conducted from 2013 to 2017, compared usual care for CHF patients with care incorporating daily transmission of body weight, blood pressure, heart rate, electrocardiogram tracings, pulse oximetry, and self-rated health status.²⁶ This study showed that the average number of days lost per year due to hospital admission was less in the telemonitoring group than in the usual care group (17.8 days vs. 24.2 days; P = .046). All-cause mortality was also reduced in the telemonitoring group (hazard ratio = 0.70; P = .028).

Home visits allow the medical team to see challenges the patient has grown accustomed to, and perhaps ones that the patient has deemed too insignificant to mention.

Continue to: What role do “home hospitals” play?

What role do “home hospitals” play?

Home hospitals provide acute or subacute treatment in a patient’s home for a condition that would normally require hospitalization.²⁷ In a meta-analysis of 61 studies evaluating the effectiveness of home hospitals, this option was more likely to reduce mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 0.81; P = .008) and to reduce readmission rates (OR = 0.75; P = .02).²⁸ In a study of 455 older adults, Leff et al found that hospital-at-home was associated with a shorter length of stay (3.2 vs. 4.9 days; P = .004) and that the mean cost was lower for hospital-at-home vs traditional hospital care.²⁹

However, a 2016 Cochrane review of 16 randomized controlled trials comparing hospital-at-home with traditional hospital care showed that while care in a hospital-­at-home may decrease formal costs, if costs for caregivers are taken into account, any difference in cost may disappear.³⁰

Although the evidence for cost saving is variable, hospital-at-home admission has been shown to reduce the likelihood of living in a residential care facility at 6 months (RR = 0.35; P < .0001).³⁰ Further, the same Cochrane review showed that admission avoidance may increase patient satisfaction with the care provided.³⁰

Finally, a recent randomized trial in a Boston-area hospital system showed that patients cared for in hospital-at-home were significantly less likely to be readmitted within 30 days and that adjusted cost was about two-thirds the cost of traditional hospital care.³¹

What is the physician’s rolein home health care?

While home health care is a team effort, the physician has several crucial roles. First, he or she must make the determination that home care is appropriate and feasible for a particular patient. Appropriate, meaning there is evidence that this patient is likely to benefit from home care. Feasible, meaning there are resources available in the community and family to safely care for the patient at home. “Often a house call will serve as the first step in developing a home-based-management plan.”³²

Patients with diabetes receiving home care are more likely to have improved quality of life, lower HbA1c levels, and lower systolic BP readings.

Continue to: Second, the physician serves...

Second, the physician serves an important role in directing and coordinating the team of professionals involved. This primarily means helping the team to communicate with one another. Before home visits begin, the physician’s office should reach out not only to the patient and family, but also to any other health care personnel involved in the patient’s home care. Otherwise, many of the health care providers involved will never have face-to-face interaction with the physician. Creation of the coordinated health team minimizes duplication and miscommunication; it also builds a valuable bond.

How does one go about making a home visit?

Scheduling. What often works best in a busy practice is to schedule home visits for the end of the workday or to devote an entire afternoon to making home visits to several patients in one locale. Also important is scheduling times, if possible, when important family members or other caregivers are at home or when other members of the home care team can accompany you.

What to bring along. Carry a “home visit bag” that includes equipment you’re likely to need and that is not available away from your office. A minimally equipped visit bag would include different-sized blood pressure cuffs, a glucometer, a pulse oximeter, thermometers, and patient education materials. Other suggested contents are listed in TABLE 1. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, providers should also carry adequate personal protective equipment (PPE), including an N-95 mask.

Dos and don’ts. Take a few minutes when you first arrive to simply visit with the patient. Sit down and introduce yourself and any members of the home care team that the patient has not met. Take an interim history. While you’re doing this, be observant: Is the home neat or cluttered? Is the indoor temperature comfortable? Are there fall hazards? Is there a smell of cigarette smoke? Are there any indoor combustion sources (eg, wood stove or kerosene heater)? Ask questions such as: Who lives here with you? Can you show me where you keep your medicines? (If the patient keeps insulin or any other medicines in the refrigerator, ask to see it. Note any apparent food scarcity.)

During your exam, pay particular attention to whether vital signs are appreciably different than those measured in the office or hospital. Pay special attention to the patient’s functional abilities. “A subtle, but critical distinction between medical management in the home and medical management in the hospital, clinic, or office is the emphasis on the patient’s functional abilities, family assistance, and environmental factors.”³³

Observe the patient’s use of any home technology, if possible; this can be as simple as home oxygenation or as complex as home hemodialysis. Assess for any apparent caregiver stress. Finally, don’t neglect to offer appropriate emotional and spiritual support to the patient and family and to schedule the next follow-up visit before you leave.

Continue to:  Documentation and reimbursement.

Not all assessments will be able to be done at each visit but seeing them listed in the template can be helpful. Billing follows the same principles as for office visits and has similar requirements for documentation. Codes for the most common types of home visits are listed in TABLE 3.

Where can I get help?

Graduates of family medicine residency programs are required to receive training in home visits by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Current ACGME program requirements stipulate that “residents must demonstrate competence to independently diagnose, manage, and integrate the care of patients of all ages in various outpatient settings, including the FMP [family medicine practice] site and home environment,” and “residents must be primarily responsible for a panel of continuity patients, integrating each patient’s care across all settings, including the home ...” [emphasis added].³⁴

For those already in practice, one of the hardest parts of doing home visits is feeling alone, especially if few other providers in your community engage in home care. As you run into questions and challenges with incorporating home care of patients into your practice, one excellent resource is the American Academy of Home Care Medicine (www.aahcm.org/). Founded in 1988 and headquartered in Chicago, it not only provides numerous helpful resources, but serves as a networking tool for physicians involved in home care.

Using a home visit template can help with documentation and reimbursement.

This unprecedented pandemichas allowed home visits to shine

As depicted in our opening patient case, patients who have high-risk conditions and those who are older than 65 years of age may be cared for more appropriately in a home visit rather than having them come to the office. Home visits may also be a way for providers to “lay eyes” on patients who do not have technology available to participate in virtual visits.

Before performing a home visit, inquire as to whether the patient has symptoms of COVID-19. Adequate PPE should be donned at all times and social distancing should be practiced when appropriate. With adequate PPE, home visits may also allow providers to care for low-risk patients known to have ­COVID-19 and thereby minimize risks to staff and other patients in the office. JFP

CORRESPONDENCE
Curt Elliott, MD, Prisma Health USC Family Medicine Center, 3209 Colonial Drive, Columbia, SC 29203; [email protected].

CASE 

Mr. A is a 30-year-old man with neurofibromatosis and myelopathy with associated quadriplegia, complicated by dysphasia and chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure requiring a tracheostomy. He is cared for at home by his very competent mother but requires regular visits with his medical providers for assistance with his complex care needs. Due to logistical challenges, he had been receiving regular home visits even before the ­COVID-19 pandemic.

After estimating the risk of exposure to the patient, Mr. A’s family and his physician’s office staff scheduled a home visit. Before the appointment, the doctor conducted a virtual visit with the patient and family members to screen for COVID-19 infection, which proved negative. The doctor arranged a visit to coincide with Mr. A’s regular appointment with the home health nurse. He invited the patient’s social worker to attend, as well.

The providers donned masks, face shields, and gloves before entering the home. Mr. A’s temperature was checked and was normal. The team completed a physical exam, assessed the patient’s current needs, and refilled prescriptions. The doctor, nurse, and social worker met afterward in the family’s driveway to coordinate plans for the patient’s future care.

This encounter allowed a vulnerable patient with special needs to have access to care while reducing his risk of undesirable exposure. Also, his health care team’s provision of care in the home setting reduced Mr. A’s anxiety and that of his family members.

Home visits have long been an integral part of what it means to be a family physician. In 1930, roughly 40% of all patient-physician encounters in the United States occurred in patients’ homes. By 1980, this number had dropped to < 1%.¹ Still, a 1994 survey of American doctors in 3 primary care specialties revealed that 63% of family physicians, more than the other 2 specialties, still made house calls.² A 2016 analysis of Medicare claims data showed that between 2006 and 2011, only 5% of American doctors overall made house calls on Medicare recipients, but interestingly, the total number of home visits was increasing.³

This resurgence of interest in home health care is due in part to the increasing number of homebound patients in America, which exceeds the number of those in nursing homes.⁴ Further, a growing body of evidence indicates that home visits improve patient outcomes. And finally, many family physicians whose work lives have been centered around a busy office or hospital practice have found satisfaction in once again seeing patients in their own homes.

The COVID-19 pandemic has of course presented unique challenges—and opportunities, too—for home visits, which we discuss at the end of the article.

In the elderly, home visits have reduced functional decline, nursing home admissions, and mortality by 25% to 33%.

Why aren’t more of us making home visits?

For most of us, the decision not to make home visits is simply a matter of time and money. Although Medicare reimbursement for a home visit is typically about 150% that of a comparable office visit,⁵ it’s difficult, if not impossible, to make 2 home visits in the time you could see 3 patients in the office. So, economically it’s a net loss. Furthermore, we tend to feel less comfortable in our patients’ homes than in our offices. We have less control outside our own environment, and what happens away from our office is often less predictable—sometimes to the point that we may be concerned for our safety.

Continue to: So why make home visits at all?

So why make home visits at all?

First and foremost, home visits improve patient outcomes. This is most evident in our more vulnerable patients: newborns and the elderly, those who have been recently hospitalized, and those at risk because of their particular home situation. Multiple studies have shown that, for elders, home visits reduce functional decline, nursing home admissions, and mortality by around 25% to 33%.^6-8 For those at risk of abuse, a recent systematic review showed that home visits reduce intimate partner violence and child abuse.⁹ Another systematic review demonstrated that patients with diabetes who received home visits vs usual care were more likely to show improvements in quality of life.¹⁰ These patients were also more likely to have lower HbA1c levels and lower systolic blood pressure readings.¹⁰ A few caveats apply to these studies:

• all of them targeted “vulnerable” patients
• most studies enlisted interdisciplinary teams and had regular team meetings
• most findings reached significance only after multiple home visits.

A further reason for choosing to become involved in home care is that it builds relationships, understanding, and empathy with our patients. “There is deep symbolism in the home visit.... It says, ‘I care enough about you to leave my power base … to come and see you on your own ground.’”¹¹ And this benefit is 2-way; we also grow to understand and appreciate our patients better, especially if they are different from us culturally or socioeconomically.

Home visits allow the medical team to see challenges the patient has grown accustomed to, and perhaps ones that the patient has deemed too insignificant to mention. For the patient, home visits foster a strong sense of trust with the individual doctor and our health delivery network, and they decrease the need to seek emergency services. Finally, it has been demonstrated that provider satisfaction improves when home visits are incorporated into the work week.¹²

What is the role of community health workers in home-based care?

Community health workers (CHWs), defined as “frontline public health workers who are trusted members of and/or have an unusually close understanding of the community they serve,”¹³ can be an integral part of the home-based care team. Although CHWs have variable amounts of formal training, they have a unique perspective on local health beliefs and practices, which can assist the home-care team in providing culturally competent health care services and reduce health care costs.

In a study of children with asthma in Seattle, Washington, patients were randomized to a group that had 4 home visits by CHWs and a group that received usual care. The group that received home visits demonstrated more asthma symptom–free days, improved quality-of-life scores, and fewer urgent care visits.¹⁴ Furthermore, the intervention was estimated to save approximately $1300 per patient, resulting in a return on investment of 190%. Similarly, in a study comparing inappropriate emergency department (ED) visits between children who received CHW visits and those who did not, patients in the intervention group were significantly less likely to visit the ED for ambulatory complaints (18.2% vs 35.1%; P = .004).¹⁵

Continue to: What is the role of social workersin home-based care?

What is the role of social workersin home-based care?

Social workers can help meet the complex medical and biopsychosocial needs of the homebound population.¹⁶ A study by Cohen et al based in Israel concluded that homebound participants had a significantly higher risk for mortality, higher rates of depression, and difficulty completing instrumental activities of daily living when compared with their non-homebound counterparts.¹⁷

The Mount Sinai (New York) Visiting Doctors Program (MSVD) is a home-based care team that uses social workers to meet the needs of their complex patients.¹⁸ The social workers in the MSVD program provide direct counseling, make referrals to government and community resources, and monitor caregiver burden. Using a combination of measurement tools to assess caregiver burden, Ornstein et al demonstrated that the MSVD program led to a decrease in unmet needs and in caregiver burden.^19,20 Caregiver burnout can be assessed using the Caregiver Burden Inventory, a validated 24-item questionnaire.²¹

What electronic tools are availableto monitor patients at home?

Although expensive in terms of both dollars and personnel time, telemonitoring allows home care providers to receive real-time, updated information regarding their patients.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). One systematic review showed that although telemonitoring of patients with COPD improved quality of life and decreased COPD exacerbations, it did not reduce the risk of hospitalization and, therefore, did not reduce health care costs.²² Telemonitoring in COPD can include transmission of data about spirometry parameters, weight, temperature, blood pressure, sputum color, and 6-minute walk distance.^23,24

Congestive heart failure (CHF). A 2010 Cochrane review found that telemonitoring of patients with CHF reduced all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 0.66; P < .0001).²⁵ The Telemedical Interventional Management in Heart Failure II (TIM-HF2) trial,conducted from 2013 to 2017, compared usual care for CHF patients with care incorporating daily transmission of body weight, blood pressure, heart rate, electrocardiogram tracings, pulse oximetry, and self-rated health status.²⁶ This study showed that the average number of days lost per year due to hospital admission was less in the telemonitoring group than in the usual care group (17.8 days vs. 24.2 days; P = .046). All-cause mortality was also reduced in the telemonitoring group (hazard ratio = 0.70; P = .028).

Home visits allow the medical team to see challenges the patient has grown accustomed to, and perhaps ones that the patient has deemed too insignificant to mention.

Continue to: What role do “home hospitals” play?

What role do “home hospitals” play?

Home hospitals provide acute or subacute treatment in a patient’s home for a condition that would normally require hospitalization.²⁷ In a meta-analysis of 61 studies evaluating the effectiveness of home hospitals, this option was more likely to reduce mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 0.81; P = .008) and to reduce readmission rates (OR = 0.75; P = .02).²⁸ In a study of 455 older adults, Leff et al found that hospital-at-home was associated with a shorter length of stay (3.2 vs. 4.9 days; P = .004) and that the mean cost was lower for hospital-at-home vs traditional hospital care.²⁹

However, a 2016 Cochrane review of 16 randomized controlled trials comparing hospital-at-home with traditional hospital care showed that while care in a hospital-­at-home may decrease formal costs, if costs for caregivers are taken into account, any difference in cost may disappear.³⁰

Although the evidence for cost saving is variable, hospital-at-home admission has been shown to reduce the likelihood of living in a residential care facility at 6 months (RR = 0.35; P < .0001).³⁰ Further, the same Cochrane review showed that admission avoidance may increase patient satisfaction with the care provided.³⁰

Finally, a recent randomized trial in a Boston-area hospital system showed that patients cared for in hospital-at-home were significantly less likely to be readmitted within 30 days and that adjusted cost was about two-thirds the cost of traditional hospital care.³¹

What is the physician’s rolein home health care?

While home health care is a team effort, the physician has several crucial roles. First, he or she must make the determination that home care is appropriate and feasible for a particular patient. Appropriate, meaning there is evidence that this patient is likely to benefit from home care. Feasible, meaning there are resources available in the community and family to safely care for the patient at home. “Often a house call will serve as the first step in developing a home-based-management plan.”³²

Patients with diabetes receiving home care are more likely to have improved quality of life, lower HbA1c levels, and lower systolic BP readings.

Continue to: Second, the physician serves...

Second, the physician serves an important role in directing and coordinating the team of professionals involved. This primarily means helping the team to communicate with one another. Before home visits begin, the physician’s office should reach out not only to the patient and family, but also to any other health care personnel involved in the patient’s home care. Otherwise, many of the health care providers involved will never have face-to-face interaction with the physician. Creation of the coordinated health team minimizes duplication and miscommunication; it also builds a valuable bond.

How does one go about making a home visit?

Scheduling. What often works best in a busy practice is to schedule home visits for the end of the workday or to devote an entire afternoon to making home visits to several patients in one locale. Also important is scheduling times, if possible, when important family members or other caregivers are at home or when other members of the home care team can accompany you.

What to bring along. Carry a “home visit bag” that includes equipment you’re likely to need and that is not available away from your office. A minimally equipped visit bag would include different-sized blood pressure cuffs, a glucometer, a pulse oximeter, thermometers, and patient education materials. Other suggested contents are listed in TABLE 1. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, providers should also carry adequate personal protective equipment (PPE), including an N-95 mask.

Dos and don’ts. Take a few minutes when you first arrive to simply visit with the patient. Sit down and introduce yourself and any members of the home care team that the patient has not met. Take an interim history. While you’re doing this, be observant: Is the home neat or cluttered? Is the indoor temperature comfortable? Are there fall hazards? Is there a smell of cigarette smoke? Are there any indoor combustion sources (eg, wood stove or kerosene heater)? Ask questions such as: Who lives here with you? Can you show me where you keep your medicines? (If the patient keeps insulin or any other medicines in the refrigerator, ask to see it. Note any apparent food scarcity.)

During your exam, pay particular attention to whether vital signs are appreciably different than those measured in the office or hospital. Pay special attention to the patient’s functional abilities. “A subtle, but critical distinction between medical management in the home and medical management in the hospital, clinic, or office is the emphasis on the patient’s functional abilities, family assistance, and environmental factors.”³³

Observe the patient’s use of any home technology, if possible; this can be as simple as home oxygenation or as complex as home hemodialysis. Assess for any apparent caregiver stress. Finally, don’t neglect to offer appropriate emotional and spiritual support to the patient and family and to schedule the next follow-up visit before you leave.

Continue to:  Documentation and reimbursement.

Not all assessments will be able to be done at each visit but seeing them listed in the template can be helpful. Billing follows the same principles as for office visits and has similar requirements for documentation. Codes for the most common types of home visits are listed in TABLE 3.

Where can I get help?

Graduates of family medicine residency programs are required to receive training in home visits by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Current ACGME program requirements stipulate that “residents must demonstrate competence to independently diagnose, manage, and integrate the care of patients of all ages in various outpatient settings, including the FMP [family medicine practice] site and home environment,” and “residents must be primarily responsible for a panel of continuity patients, integrating each patient’s care across all settings, including the home ...” [emphasis added].³⁴

For those already in practice, one of the hardest parts of doing home visits is feeling alone, especially if few other providers in your community engage in home care. As you run into questions and challenges with incorporating home care of patients into your practice, one excellent resource is the American Academy of Home Care Medicine (www.aahcm.org/). Founded in 1988 and headquartered in Chicago, it not only provides numerous helpful resources, but serves as a networking tool for physicians involved in home care.

Using a home visit template can help with documentation and reimbursement.

This unprecedented pandemichas allowed home visits to shine

As depicted in our opening patient case, patients who have high-risk conditions and those who are older than 65 years of age may be cared for more appropriately in a home visit rather than having them come to the office. Home visits may also be a way for providers to “lay eyes” on patients who do not have technology available to participate in virtual visits.

Before performing a home visit, inquire as to whether the patient has symptoms of COVID-19. Adequate PPE should be donned at all times and social distancing should be practiced when appropriate. With adequate PPE, home visits may also allow providers to care for low-risk patients known to have ­COVID-19 and thereby minimize risks to staff and other patients in the office. JFP

CORRESPONDENCE
Curt Elliott, MD, Prisma Health USC Family Medicine Center, 3209 Colonial Drive, Columbia, SC 29203; [email protected].

CASE 

Mr. A is a 30-year-old man with neurofibromatosis and myelopathy with associated quadriplegia, complicated by dysphasia and chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure requiring a tracheostomy. He is cared for at home by his very competent mother but requires regular visits with his medical providers for assistance with his complex care needs. Due to logistical challenges, he had been receiving regular home visits even before the ­COVID-19 pandemic.

After estimating the risk of exposure to the patient, Mr. A’s family and his physician’s office staff scheduled a home visit. Before the appointment, the doctor conducted a virtual visit with the patient and family members to screen for COVID-19 infection, which proved negative. The doctor arranged a visit to coincide with Mr. A’s regular appointment with the home health nurse. He invited the patient’s social worker to attend, as well.

The providers donned masks, face shields, and gloves before entering the home. Mr. A’s temperature was checked and was normal. The team completed a physical exam, assessed the patient’s current needs, and refilled prescriptions. The doctor, nurse, and social worker met afterward in the family’s driveway to coordinate plans for the patient’s future care.

This encounter allowed a vulnerable patient with special needs to have access to care while reducing his risk of undesirable exposure. Also, his health care team’s provision of care in the home setting reduced Mr. A’s anxiety and that of his family members.

Home visits have long been an integral part of what it means to be a family physician. In 1930, roughly 40% of all patient-physician encounters in the United States occurred in patients’ homes. By 1980, this number had dropped to < 1%.¹ Still, a 1994 survey of American doctors in 3 primary care specialties revealed that 63% of family physicians, more than the other 2 specialties, still made house calls.² A 2016 analysis of Medicare claims data showed that between 2006 and 2011, only 5% of American doctors overall made house calls on Medicare recipients, but interestingly, the total number of home visits was increasing.³

This resurgence of interest in home health care is due in part to the increasing number of homebound patients in America, which exceeds the number of those in nursing homes.⁴ Further, a growing body of evidence indicates that home visits improve patient outcomes. And finally, many family physicians whose work lives have been centered around a busy office or hospital practice have found satisfaction in once again seeing patients in their own homes.

The COVID-19 pandemic has of course presented unique challenges—and opportunities, too—for home visits, which we discuss at the end of the article.

In the elderly, home visits have reduced functional decline, nursing home admissions, and mortality by 25% to 33%.

Why aren’t more of us making home visits?

For most of us, the decision not to make home visits is simply a matter of time and money. Although Medicare reimbursement for a home visit is typically about 150% that of a comparable office visit,⁵ it’s difficult, if not impossible, to make 2 home visits in the time you could see 3 patients in the office. So, economically it’s a net loss. Furthermore, we tend to feel less comfortable in our patients’ homes than in our offices. We have less control outside our own environment, and what happens away from our office is often less predictable—sometimes to the point that we may be concerned for our safety.

Continue to: So why make home visits at all?

So why make home visits at all?

First and foremost, home visits improve patient outcomes. This is most evident in our more vulnerable patients: newborns and the elderly, those who have been recently hospitalized, and those at risk because of their particular home situation. Multiple studies have shown that, for elders, home visits reduce functional decline, nursing home admissions, and mortality by around 25% to 33%.^6-8 For those at risk of abuse, a recent systematic review showed that home visits reduce intimate partner violence and child abuse.⁹ Another systematic review demonstrated that patients with diabetes who received home visits vs usual care were more likely to show improvements in quality of life.¹⁰ These patients were also more likely to have lower HbA1c levels and lower systolic blood pressure readings.¹⁰ A few caveats apply to these studies:

• all of them targeted “vulnerable” patients
• most studies enlisted interdisciplinary teams and had regular team meetings
• most findings reached significance only after multiple home visits.

A further reason for choosing to become involved in home care is that it builds relationships, understanding, and empathy with our patients. “There is deep symbolism in the home visit.... It says, ‘I care enough about you to leave my power base … to come and see you on your own ground.’”¹¹ And this benefit is 2-way; we also grow to understand and appreciate our patients better, especially if they are different from us culturally or socioeconomically.

Home visits allow the medical team to see challenges the patient has grown accustomed to, and perhaps ones that the patient has deemed too insignificant to mention. For the patient, home visits foster a strong sense of trust with the individual doctor and our health delivery network, and they decrease the need to seek emergency services. Finally, it has been demonstrated that provider satisfaction improves when home visits are incorporated into the work week.¹²

What is the role of community health workers in home-based care?

Community health workers (CHWs), defined as “frontline public health workers who are trusted members of and/or have an unusually close understanding of the community they serve,”¹³ can be an integral part of the home-based care team. Although CHWs have variable amounts of formal training, they have a unique perspective on local health beliefs and practices, which can assist the home-care team in providing culturally competent health care services and reduce health care costs.

In a study of children with asthma in Seattle, Washington, patients were randomized to a group that had 4 home visits by CHWs and a group that received usual care. The group that received home visits demonstrated more asthma symptom–free days, improved quality-of-life scores, and fewer urgent care visits.¹⁴ Furthermore, the intervention was estimated to save approximately $1300 per patient, resulting in a return on investment of 190%. Similarly, in a study comparing inappropriate emergency department (ED) visits between children who received CHW visits and those who did not, patients in the intervention group were significantly less likely to visit the ED for ambulatory complaints (18.2% vs 35.1%; P = .004).¹⁵

Continue to: What is the role of social workersin home-based care?

What is the role of social workersin home-based care?

Social workers can help meet the complex medical and biopsychosocial needs of the homebound population.¹⁶ A study by Cohen et al based in Israel concluded that homebound participants had a significantly higher risk for mortality, higher rates of depression, and difficulty completing instrumental activities of daily living when compared with their non-homebound counterparts.¹⁷

The Mount Sinai (New York) Visiting Doctors Program (MSVD) is a home-based care team that uses social workers to meet the needs of their complex patients.¹⁸ The social workers in the MSVD program provide direct counseling, make referrals to government and community resources, and monitor caregiver burden. Using a combination of measurement tools to assess caregiver burden, Ornstein et al demonstrated that the MSVD program led to a decrease in unmet needs and in caregiver burden.^19,20 Caregiver burnout can be assessed using the Caregiver Burden Inventory, a validated 24-item questionnaire.²¹

What electronic tools are availableto monitor patients at home?

Although expensive in terms of both dollars and personnel time, telemonitoring allows home care providers to receive real-time, updated information regarding their patients.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). One systematic review showed that although telemonitoring of patients with COPD improved quality of life and decreased COPD exacerbations, it did not reduce the risk of hospitalization and, therefore, did not reduce health care costs.²² Telemonitoring in COPD can include transmission of data about spirometry parameters, weight, temperature, blood pressure, sputum color, and 6-minute walk distance.^23,24

Congestive heart failure (CHF). A 2010 Cochrane review found that telemonitoring of patients with CHF reduced all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 0.66; P < .0001).²⁵ The Telemedical Interventional Management in Heart Failure II (TIM-HF2) trial,conducted from 2013 to 2017, compared usual care for CHF patients with care incorporating daily transmission of body weight, blood pressure, heart rate, electrocardiogram tracings, pulse oximetry, and self-rated health status.²⁶ This study showed that the average number of days lost per year due to hospital admission was less in the telemonitoring group than in the usual care group (17.8 days vs. 24.2 days; P = .046). All-cause mortality was also reduced in the telemonitoring group (hazard ratio = 0.70; P = .028).

Home visits allow the medical team to see challenges the patient has grown accustomed to, and perhaps ones that the patient has deemed too insignificant to mention.

Continue to: What role do “home hospitals” play?

What role do “home hospitals” play?

Home hospitals provide acute or subacute treatment in a patient’s home for a condition that would normally require hospitalization.²⁷ In a meta-analysis of 61 studies evaluating the effectiveness of home hospitals, this option was more likely to reduce mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 0.81; P = .008) and to reduce readmission rates (OR = 0.75; P = .02).²⁸ In a study of 455 older adults, Leff et al found that hospital-at-home was associated with a shorter length of stay (3.2 vs. 4.9 days; P = .004) and that the mean cost was lower for hospital-at-home vs traditional hospital care.²⁹

However, a 2016 Cochrane review of 16 randomized controlled trials comparing hospital-at-home with traditional hospital care showed that while care in a hospital-­at-home may decrease formal costs, if costs for caregivers are taken into account, any difference in cost may disappear.³⁰

Although the evidence for cost saving is variable, hospital-at-home admission has been shown to reduce the likelihood of living in a residential care facility at 6 months (RR = 0.35; P < .0001).³⁰ Further, the same Cochrane review showed that admission avoidance may increase patient satisfaction with the care provided.³⁰

Finally, a recent randomized trial in a Boston-area hospital system showed that patients cared for in hospital-at-home were significantly less likely to be readmitted within 30 days and that adjusted cost was about two-thirds the cost of traditional hospital care.³¹

What is the physician’s rolein home health care?

While home health care is a team effort, the physician has several crucial roles. First, he or she must make the determination that home care is appropriate and feasible for a particular patient. Appropriate, meaning there is evidence that this patient is likely to benefit from home care. Feasible, meaning there are resources available in the community and family to safely care for the patient at home. “Often a house call will serve as the first step in developing a home-based-management plan.”³²

Patients with diabetes receiving home care are more likely to have improved quality of life, lower HbA1c levels, and lower systolic BP readings.

Continue to: Second, the physician serves...

Second, the physician serves an important role in directing and coordinating the team of professionals involved. This primarily means helping the team to communicate with one another. Before home visits begin, the physician’s office should reach out not only to the patient and family, but also to any other health care personnel involved in the patient’s home care. Otherwise, many of the health care providers involved will never have face-to-face interaction with the physician. Creation of the coordinated health team minimizes duplication and miscommunication; it also builds a valuable bond.

How does one go about making a home visit?

Scheduling. What often works best in a busy practice is to schedule home visits for the end of the workday or to devote an entire afternoon to making home visits to several patients in one locale. Also important is scheduling times, if possible, when important family members or other caregivers are at home or when other members of the home care team can accompany you.

What to bring along. Carry a “home visit bag” that includes equipment you’re likely to need and that is not available away from your office. A minimally equipped visit bag would include different-sized blood pressure cuffs, a glucometer, a pulse oximeter, thermometers, and patient education materials. Other suggested contents are listed in TABLE 1. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, providers should also carry adequate personal protective equipment (PPE), including an N-95 mask.

Dos and don’ts. Take a few minutes when you first arrive to simply visit with the patient. Sit down and introduce yourself and any members of the home care team that the patient has not met. Take an interim history. While you’re doing this, be observant: Is the home neat or cluttered? Is the indoor temperature comfortable? Are there fall hazards? Is there a smell of cigarette smoke? Are there any indoor combustion sources (eg, wood stove or kerosene heater)? Ask questions such as: Who lives here with you? Can you show me where you keep your medicines? (If the patient keeps insulin or any other medicines in the refrigerator, ask to see it. Note any apparent food scarcity.)

During your exam, pay particular attention to whether vital signs are appreciably different than those measured in the office or hospital. Pay special attention to the patient’s functional abilities. “A subtle, but critical distinction between medical management in the home and medical management in the hospital, clinic, or office is the emphasis on the patient’s functional abilities, family assistance, and environmental factors.”³³

Observe the patient’s use of any home technology, if possible; this can be as simple as home oxygenation or as complex as home hemodialysis. Assess for any apparent caregiver stress. Finally, don’t neglect to offer appropriate emotional and spiritual support to the patient and family and to schedule the next follow-up visit before you leave.

Continue to:  Documentation and reimbursement.

Not all assessments will be able to be done at each visit but seeing them listed in the template can be helpful. Billing follows the same principles as for office visits and has similar requirements for documentation. Codes for the most common types of home visits are listed in TABLE 3.

Where can I get help?

Graduates of family medicine residency programs are required to receive training in home visits by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Current ACGME program requirements stipulate that “residents must demonstrate competence to independently diagnose, manage, and integrate the care of patients of all ages in various outpatient settings, including the FMP [family medicine practice] site and home environment,” and “residents must be primarily responsible for a panel of continuity patients, integrating each patient’s care across all settings, including the home ...” [emphasis added].³⁴

For those already in practice, one of the hardest parts of doing home visits is feeling alone, especially if few other providers in your community engage in home care. As you run into questions and challenges with incorporating home care of patients into your practice, one excellent resource is the American Academy of Home Care Medicine (www.aahcm.org/). Founded in 1988 and headquartered in Chicago, it not only provides numerous helpful resources, but serves as a networking tool for physicians involved in home care.

Using a home visit template can help with documentation and reimbursement.

This unprecedented pandemichas allowed home visits to shine

As depicted in our opening patient case, patients who have high-risk conditions and those who are older than 65 years of age may be cared for more appropriately in a home visit rather than having them come to the office. Home visits may also be a way for providers to “lay eyes” on patients who do not have technology available to participate in virtual visits.

Before performing a home visit, inquire as to whether the patient has symptoms of COVID-19. Adequate PPE should be donned at all times and social distancing should be practiced when appropriate. With adequate PPE, home visits may also allow providers to care for low-risk patients known to have ­COVID-19 and thereby minimize risks to staff and other patients in the office. JFP

CORRESPONDENCE
Curt Elliott, MD, Prisma Health USC Family Medicine Center, 3209 Colonial Drive, Columbia, SC 29203; [email protected].

Adults older than 65 years with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) had significantly higher rates of inpatient mortality, compared with those younger than 65 years, independent of factors including disease severity, based on data from more than 200,000 hospital admissions.

Older adults use a disproportionate share of health care resources, but data on outcomes among hospitalized older adults with gastrointestinal illness are limited, Jeffrey Schwartz, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.

“In particular, there remains a significant concern that elderly patients are more susceptible to the development of opportunistic infections and malignancy in the setting of biological therapy, which has evolved into the standard of care for IBD over the past 10 years,” they wrote.

In their study, the researchers identified 162,800 hospital admissions for Crohn’s disease and 96,450 admissions for ulcerative colitis. Of these, 20% and 30%, respectively, were older than 65 years, which the researchers designated as the geriatric group.

In a multivariate analysis, age older than 65 years was significantly associated with increased mortality in both Crohn’s disease (odds ratio, 3.47; 95% confidence interval, 2.72-4.44; P < .001) and ulcerative colitis (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 2.16-3.49; P < .001). The association was independent of factors included comorbidities, admission type, hospital type, inpatient surgery, and IBD subtype.

The most frequent cause of death in both groups across all ages and disease subtypes was infections (approximately 80% for all groups). The total hospital length of stay was significantly longer for geriatric patients, compared with younger patients with Crohn’s disease, in multivariate analysis (average increase, 0.19 days; P = .009). The total charges also were significantly higher among geriatric Crohn’s disease patients, compared with younger patients (average increase, $2,467; P = .012). No significant differences in hospital stay or total charges appeared between geriatric and younger patients with ulcerative colitis.

The study findings were limited by several factors such as the inclusion of older patients with IBD who were hospitalized for other reasons and by the potential for increased mortality because of comorbidities among elderly patients, the researchers noted. However, the findings support the limited data from similar previous studies and showed greater inpatient mortality for older adults with IBD, compared with hospital inpatients overall.

“Given the high prevalence of IBD patients that require inpatient admission, as well as the rapidly aging nature of the U.S. population, further studies are needed targeting geriatric patients with UC [ulcerative colitis] and CD [Crohn’s disease] to improve their overall management and quality of care to determine if this mortality risk can be reduced,” they concluded.
 

Tune in to risks in older adults

The study is important because the percentage of the population older than 65 years has been increasing; “at the same time, we are seeing more elderly patients being newly diagnosed with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis,” said Russell D. Cohen, MD, of the University of Chicago, in an interview. “These patients are more vulnerable to complications of the diseases, such as infections, as well as complications from the medications used to treat these diseases.” However, older adults are often excluded from clinical trials and even from many observational studies in IBD, he noted.

“We have known from past studies that infections such as sepsis are a leading cause of death in our IBD patients,” said Dr. Cohen. “It is also understandable that those patients who have had complicated courses and those with other comorbidities have a higher mortality rate. However, what was surprising in the current study is that, even when the authors controlled for these factors, the geriatric patients still had two and three-quarters to three and a half times the mortality than those who were younger.”

The take-home message for clinicians is that “the geriatric patient with IBD is at a much higher rate for inpatient mortality, most commonly from infectious complications, than younger patients,” Dr. Cohen emphasized. “Quicker attention to what may seem minor but could become a potentially life-threatening infection is imperative. Caution with the use of multiple immune suppressing medications in older patients is paramount, as is timely surgical intervention in IBD patients in whom medications simply are not working.”
 

Focus research on infection prevention, cost burden

“More research should be directed at finding out whether these deadly infections could be prevented, perhaps by preventative ‘prophylactic’ antibiotics in the elderly patients, especially those on multiple immunosuppressive agents,” said Dr. Cohen. “In addition, research into the undue cost burden that these patients place on our health care system and counter that with better access to the newer, safer biological therapies [most of which Medicare does not cover] rather than corticosteroids.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Cohen disclosed relationships with multiple companies including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and UCB Pharma.

SOURCE: Schwartz J et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020 Nov 23. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001458.

Adults older than 65 years with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) had significantly higher rates of inpatient mortality, compared with those younger than 65 years, independent of factors including disease severity, based on data from more than 200,000 hospital admissions.

Older adults use a disproportionate share of health care resources, but data on outcomes among hospitalized older adults with gastrointestinal illness are limited, Jeffrey Schwartz, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.

“In particular, there remains a significant concern that elderly patients are more susceptible to the development of opportunistic infections and malignancy in the setting of biological therapy, which has evolved into the standard of care for IBD over the past 10 years,” they wrote.

In their study, the researchers identified 162,800 hospital admissions for Crohn’s disease and 96,450 admissions for ulcerative colitis. Of these, 20% and 30%, respectively, were older than 65 years, which the researchers designated as the geriatric group.

In a multivariate analysis, age older than 65 years was significantly associated with increased mortality in both Crohn’s disease (odds ratio, 3.47; 95% confidence interval, 2.72-4.44; P < .001) and ulcerative colitis (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 2.16-3.49; P < .001). The association was independent of factors included comorbidities, admission type, hospital type, inpatient surgery, and IBD subtype.

The most frequent cause of death in both groups across all ages and disease subtypes was infections (approximately 80% for all groups). The total hospital length of stay was significantly longer for geriatric patients, compared with younger patients with Crohn’s disease, in multivariate analysis (average increase, 0.19 days; P = .009). The total charges also were significantly higher among geriatric Crohn’s disease patients, compared with younger patients (average increase, $2,467; P = .012). No significant differences in hospital stay or total charges appeared between geriatric and younger patients with ulcerative colitis.

The study findings were limited by several factors such as the inclusion of older patients with IBD who were hospitalized for other reasons and by the potential for increased mortality because of comorbidities among elderly patients, the researchers noted. However, the findings support the limited data from similar previous studies and showed greater inpatient mortality for older adults with IBD, compared with hospital inpatients overall.

“Given the high prevalence of IBD patients that require inpatient admission, as well as the rapidly aging nature of the U.S. population, further studies are needed targeting geriatric patients with UC [ulcerative colitis] and CD [Crohn’s disease] to improve their overall management and quality of care to determine if this mortality risk can be reduced,” they concluded.
 

Tune in to risks in older adults

The study is important because the percentage of the population older than 65 years has been increasing; “at the same time, we are seeing more elderly patients being newly diagnosed with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis,” said Russell D. Cohen, MD, of the University of Chicago, in an interview. “These patients are more vulnerable to complications of the diseases, such as infections, as well as complications from the medications used to treat these diseases.” However, older adults are often excluded from clinical trials and even from many observational studies in IBD, he noted.

“We have known from past studies that infections such as sepsis are a leading cause of death in our IBD patients,” said Dr. Cohen. “It is also understandable that those patients who have had complicated courses and those with other comorbidities have a higher mortality rate. However, what was surprising in the current study is that, even when the authors controlled for these factors, the geriatric patients still had two and three-quarters to three and a half times the mortality than those who were younger.”

The take-home message for clinicians is that “the geriatric patient with IBD is at a much higher rate for inpatient mortality, most commonly from infectious complications, than younger patients,” Dr. Cohen emphasized. “Quicker attention to what may seem minor but could become a potentially life-threatening infection is imperative. Caution with the use of multiple immune suppressing medications in older patients is paramount, as is timely surgical intervention in IBD patients in whom medications simply are not working.”
 

Focus research on infection prevention, cost burden

“More research should be directed at finding out whether these deadly infections could be prevented, perhaps by preventative ‘prophylactic’ antibiotics in the elderly patients, especially those on multiple immunosuppressive agents,” said Dr. Cohen. “In addition, research into the undue cost burden that these patients place on our health care system and counter that with better access to the newer, safer biological therapies [most of which Medicare does not cover] rather than corticosteroids.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Cohen disclosed relationships with multiple companies including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and UCB Pharma.

SOURCE: Schwartz J et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020 Nov 23. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001458.

Adults older than 65 years with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) had significantly higher rates of inpatient mortality, compared with those younger than 65 years, independent of factors including disease severity, based on data from more than 200,000 hospital admissions.

Older adults use a disproportionate share of health care resources, but data on outcomes among hospitalized older adults with gastrointestinal illness are limited, Jeffrey Schwartz, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.

“In particular, there remains a significant concern that elderly patients are more susceptible to the development of opportunistic infections and malignancy in the setting of biological therapy, which has evolved into the standard of care for IBD over the past 10 years,” they wrote.

In their study, the researchers identified 162,800 hospital admissions for Crohn’s disease and 96,450 admissions for ulcerative colitis. Of these, 20% and 30%, respectively, were older than 65 years, which the researchers designated as the geriatric group.

In a multivariate analysis, age older than 65 years was significantly associated with increased mortality in both Crohn’s disease (odds ratio, 3.47; 95% confidence interval, 2.72-4.44; P < .001) and ulcerative colitis (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 2.16-3.49; P < .001). The association was independent of factors included comorbidities, admission type, hospital type, inpatient surgery, and IBD subtype.

The most frequent cause of death in both groups across all ages and disease subtypes was infections (approximately 80% for all groups). The total hospital length of stay was significantly longer for geriatric patients, compared with younger patients with Crohn’s disease, in multivariate analysis (average increase, 0.19 days; P = .009). The total charges also were significantly higher among geriatric Crohn’s disease patients, compared with younger patients (average increase, $2,467; P = .012). No significant differences in hospital stay or total charges appeared between geriatric and younger patients with ulcerative colitis.

The study findings were limited by several factors such as the inclusion of older patients with IBD who were hospitalized for other reasons and by the potential for increased mortality because of comorbidities among elderly patients, the researchers noted. However, the findings support the limited data from similar previous studies and showed greater inpatient mortality for older adults with IBD, compared with hospital inpatients overall.

“Given the high prevalence of IBD patients that require inpatient admission, as well as the rapidly aging nature of the U.S. population, further studies are needed targeting geriatric patients with UC [ulcerative colitis] and CD [Crohn’s disease] to improve their overall management and quality of care to determine if this mortality risk can be reduced,” they concluded.
 

Tune in to risks in older adults

The study is important because the percentage of the population older than 65 years has been increasing; “at the same time, we are seeing more elderly patients being newly diagnosed with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis,” said Russell D. Cohen, MD, of the University of Chicago, in an interview. “These patients are more vulnerable to complications of the diseases, such as infections, as well as complications from the medications used to treat these diseases.” However, older adults are often excluded from clinical trials and even from many observational studies in IBD, he noted.

“We have known from past studies that infections such as sepsis are a leading cause of death in our IBD patients,” said Dr. Cohen. “It is also understandable that those patients who have had complicated courses and those with other comorbidities have a higher mortality rate. However, what was surprising in the current study is that, even when the authors controlled for these factors, the geriatric patients still had two and three-quarters to three and a half times the mortality than those who were younger.”

The take-home message for clinicians is that “the geriatric patient with IBD is at a much higher rate for inpatient mortality, most commonly from infectious complications, than younger patients,” Dr. Cohen emphasized. “Quicker attention to what may seem minor but could become a potentially life-threatening infection is imperative. Caution with the use of multiple immune suppressing medications in older patients is paramount, as is timely surgical intervention in IBD patients in whom medications simply are not working.”
 

Focus research on infection prevention, cost burden

“More research should be directed at finding out whether these deadly infections could be prevented, perhaps by preventative ‘prophylactic’ antibiotics in the elderly patients, especially those on multiple immunosuppressive agents,” said Dr. Cohen. “In addition, research into the undue cost burden that these patients place on our health care system and counter that with better access to the newer, safer biological therapies [most of which Medicare does not cover] rather than corticosteroids.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Cohen disclosed relationships with multiple companies including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and UCB Pharma.

SOURCE: Schwartz J et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020 Nov 23. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001458.

The American Gastroenterological Association has published a Clinical Practice Update for management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in elderly patients, including 15 best practice advice statements.

According to lead author Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues, this topic is becoming increasingly relevant, as the population is aging, and prevalence of IBD among elderly is rising approximately 5% per year.

“Up to 15% of IBD in North America and Asia is diagnosed after the age of 60 years,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology.

Dr. Ananthakrishnan and colleagues noted that “care of elderly IBD patients poses unique challenges with respect to diagnosis and therapeutic decision-making.”

Challenges include greater frequency of comorbidities, increased risk of infection with anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy, increased risk of lymphoma with thiopurine therapy, greater likelihood of surgical complications, and, for Crohn’s disease, an elevated mortality rate, according to the update.

Another challenge is a lack of data.

“It should be noted that most clinical data to inform these practices are based on observational data or indirect evidence as elderly IBD patients comprise a very small proportion of subjects enrolled in IBD clinical trials or long-term pharmacovigilance initiatives,” the investigators wrote.

With this in mind, the update offers guidance for diagnosis, treatment, and ongoing health maintenance.
 

Diagnosis

Dr. Ananthakrishnan and colleagues first suggested that clinicians remain vigilant for IBD in elderly people, in consideration of the 15% prevalence rate in this subpopulation.

For elderly individuals with a low probability of IBD, the investigators recommended fecal calprotectin or lactoferrin to determine if endoscopy is needed. For elderly patients with chronic diarrhea or hematochezia, plus moderate to high suspicion of IBD, colorectal neoplasia, or microscopic colitis, they recommended colonoscopy.

Lastly, the expert panel suggested that elderly patients presenting with segmental left-sided colitis and diverticulosis may also have Crohn’s disease or IBD unclassified.
 

Treatment

The clinical practice update offers 10 best practice statements for treating elderly patients with IBD. There is a recurring emphasis on treatment personalization, which should be informed by patient goals and priorities, risk/presence of severe disease, chronological age, functional status, independence, comorbidities, frailty, and several other age-associated risk factors (e.g., venous thromboembolism).

Concerning specific therapies, the investigators cautioned against systemic corticosteroids for maintenance therapy; instead, nonsystemic corticosteroids (e.g., budesonide) are favored, or possibly early biological therapy if budesonide is not indicated. When selecting a biologic, Dr. Ananthakrishnan and colleagues recommended those associated with a lower risk of malignancy and infection (e.g., ustekinumab or vedolizumab).

The advantages of thiopurine monotherapy being oral, relatively inexpensive compared to biologicals and having a long track record of success in maintenance of remission must be balanced against the need for ongoing serological monitoring, and increased risk of some malignancies.

Finally, the expert panel recommended that all elderly patients receive multidisciplinary care, which may include primary care providers, mental health professionals, nutritionists, and other specialists. It may also be productive to consult with family and caregivers during treatment planning.

Health maintenance

The last two best practice advice statements concern health maintenance.

First, the investigators recommended that elderly patients with IBD adhere to vaccination schedules, including herpes zoster, pneumococcus, and influenza vaccines, ideally, before starting immunosuppression.

Second, Dr. Ananthakrishnan and colleagues advised that cessation of colorectal cancer surveillance may be considered in elderly patients with IBD; however, this decision should take into account a variety of factors, including comorbidities, age, life expectancy, likelihood of endoscopic resection, and surgical candidacy.

The review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board. The investigators disclosed relationships with Gilead, Sun Pharma, Kyn Therapeutics, and others.

SOURCE: Ananthakrishnan AN et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Sep 30. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.08.060.

This story was updated on 12/4/2020.

The American Gastroenterological Association has published a Clinical Practice Update for management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in elderly patients, including 15 best practice advice statements.

According to lead author Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues, this topic is becoming increasingly relevant, as the population is aging, and prevalence of IBD among elderly is rising approximately 5% per year.

“Up to 15% of IBD in North America and Asia is diagnosed after the age of 60 years,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology.

Dr. Ananthakrishnan and colleagues noted that “care of elderly IBD patients poses unique challenges with respect to diagnosis and therapeutic decision-making.”

Challenges include greater frequency of comorbidities, increased risk of infection with anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy, increased risk of lymphoma with thiopurine therapy, greater likelihood of surgical complications, and, for Crohn’s disease, an elevated mortality rate, according to the update.

Another challenge is a lack of data.

“It should be noted that most clinical data to inform these practices are based on observational data or indirect evidence as elderly IBD patients comprise a very small proportion of subjects enrolled in IBD clinical trials or long-term pharmacovigilance initiatives,” the investigators wrote.

With this in mind, the update offers guidance for diagnosis, treatment, and ongoing health maintenance.
 

Diagnosis

Dr. Ananthakrishnan and colleagues first suggested that clinicians remain vigilant for IBD in elderly people, in consideration of the 15% prevalence rate in this subpopulation.

For elderly individuals with a low probability of IBD, the investigators recommended fecal calprotectin or lactoferrin to determine if endoscopy is needed. For elderly patients with chronic diarrhea or hematochezia, plus moderate to high suspicion of IBD, colorectal neoplasia, or microscopic colitis, they recommended colonoscopy.

Lastly, the expert panel suggested that elderly patients presenting with segmental left-sided colitis and diverticulosis may also have Crohn’s disease or IBD unclassified.
 

Treatment

The clinical practice update offers 10 best practice statements for treating elderly patients with IBD. There is a recurring emphasis on treatment personalization, which should be informed by patient goals and priorities, risk/presence of severe disease, chronological age, functional status, independence, comorbidities, frailty, and several other age-associated risk factors (e.g., venous thromboembolism).

Concerning specific therapies, the investigators cautioned against systemic corticosteroids for maintenance therapy; instead, nonsystemic corticosteroids (e.g., budesonide) are favored, or possibly early biological therapy if budesonide is not indicated. When selecting a biologic, Dr. Ananthakrishnan and colleagues recommended those associated with a lower risk of malignancy and infection (e.g., ustekinumab or vedolizumab).

The advantages of thiopurine monotherapy being oral, relatively inexpensive compared to biologicals and having a long track record of success in maintenance of remission must be balanced against the need for ongoing serological monitoring, and increased risk of some malignancies.

Finally, the expert panel recommended that all elderly patients receive multidisciplinary care, which may include primary care providers, mental health professionals, nutritionists, and other specialists. It may also be productive to consult with family and caregivers during treatment planning.

Health maintenance

The last two best practice advice statements concern health maintenance.

First, the investigators recommended that elderly patients with IBD adhere to vaccination schedules, including herpes zoster, pneumococcus, and influenza vaccines, ideally, before starting immunosuppression.

Second, Dr. Ananthakrishnan and colleagues advised that cessation of colorectal cancer surveillance may be considered in elderly patients with IBD; however, this decision should take into account a variety of factors, including comorbidities, age, life expectancy, likelihood of endoscopic resection, and surgical candidacy.

The review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board. The investigators disclosed relationships with Gilead, Sun Pharma, Kyn Therapeutics, and others.

SOURCE: Ananthakrishnan AN et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Sep 30. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.08.060.

This story was updated on 12/4/2020.

The American Gastroenterological Association has published a Clinical Practice Update for management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in elderly patients, including 15 best practice advice statements.

According to lead author Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues, this topic is becoming increasingly relevant, as the population is aging, and prevalence of IBD among elderly is rising approximately 5% per year.

“Up to 15% of IBD in North America and Asia is diagnosed after the age of 60 years,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology.

Dr. Ananthakrishnan and colleagues noted that “care of elderly IBD patients poses unique challenges with respect to diagnosis and therapeutic decision-making.”

Challenges include greater frequency of comorbidities, increased risk of infection with anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy, increased risk of lymphoma with thiopurine therapy, greater likelihood of surgical complications, and, for Crohn’s disease, an elevated mortality rate, according to the update.

Another challenge is a lack of data.

“It should be noted that most clinical data to inform these practices are based on observational data or indirect evidence as elderly IBD patients comprise a very small proportion of subjects enrolled in IBD clinical trials or long-term pharmacovigilance initiatives,” the investigators wrote.

With this in mind, the update offers guidance for diagnosis, treatment, and ongoing health maintenance.
 

Diagnosis

Dr. Ananthakrishnan and colleagues first suggested that clinicians remain vigilant for IBD in elderly people, in consideration of the 15% prevalence rate in this subpopulation.

For elderly individuals with a low probability of IBD, the investigators recommended fecal calprotectin or lactoferrin to determine if endoscopy is needed. For elderly patients with chronic diarrhea or hematochezia, plus moderate to high suspicion of IBD, colorectal neoplasia, or microscopic colitis, they recommended colonoscopy.

Lastly, the expert panel suggested that elderly patients presenting with segmental left-sided colitis and diverticulosis may also have Crohn’s disease or IBD unclassified.
 

Treatment

The clinical practice update offers 10 best practice statements for treating elderly patients with IBD. There is a recurring emphasis on treatment personalization, which should be informed by patient goals and priorities, risk/presence of severe disease, chronological age, functional status, independence, comorbidities, frailty, and several other age-associated risk factors (e.g., venous thromboembolism).

Concerning specific therapies, the investigators cautioned against systemic corticosteroids for maintenance therapy; instead, nonsystemic corticosteroids (e.g., budesonide) are favored, or possibly early biological therapy if budesonide is not indicated. When selecting a biologic, Dr. Ananthakrishnan and colleagues recommended those associated with a lower risk of malignancy and infection (e.g., ustekinumab or vedolizumab).

The advantages of thiopurine monotherapy being oral, relatively inexpensive compared to biologicals and having a long track record of success in maintenance of remission must be balanced against the need for ongoing serological monitoring, and increased risk of some malignancies.

Finally, the expert panel recommended that all elderly patients receive multidisciplinary care, which may include primary care providers, mental health professionals, nutritionists, and other specialists. It may also be productive to consult with family and caregivers during treatment planning.

Health maintenance

The last two best practice advice statements concern health maintenance.

First, the investigators recommended that elderly patients with IBD adhere to vaccination schedules, including herpes zoster, pneumococcus, and influenza vaccines, ideally, before starting immunosuppression.

Second, Dr. Ananthakrishnan and colleagues advised that cessation of colorectal cancer surveillance may be considered in elderly patients with IBD; however, this decision should take into account a variety of factors, including comorbidities, age, life expectancy, likelihood of endoscopic resection, and surgical candidacy.

The review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board. The investigators disclosed relationships with Gilead, Sun Pharma, Kyn Therapeutics, and others.

SOURCE: Ananthakrishnan AN et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Sep 30. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.08.060.

This story was updated on 12/4/2020.

Study Overview

Objective. To examine whether discontinuation of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy and initiation of telephone-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is not worse than continuation of NSAIDs in the management of arthritis pain.

Design. Randomized controlled trial with noninferiority design.

Setting and participants. This study was a multicenter trial conducted across 4 Veterans Affairs health care systems in Boston, Providence, Connecticut, and North Florida/South Georgia that started September 2013 and ended September 2018. Eligibility criteria included being age 20 years or older, radiographic evidence of knee osteoarthritis, and use of an NSAID for knee pain on most days of the month for at least the past 3 months. Exclusion criteria included significant hearing impairments that may impede the conduct of the trial, current opioid prescriptions excluding tramadol, contraindications to NSAID use, recent or scheduled intra-articular injections or surgery, comorbid conditions other than knee pain that limited walking, and bilateral knee replacements or pain only in the replaced knee. Concurrent use of tramadol and other non-NSAID analgesics was permitted.

A total of 490 participants took part in the 2-week run-in period where their NSAID regimen was discontinued and they were started on a standardized dose of the NSAID meloxicam 15 mg daily. During the run-in period, 126 participants were excluded for several reasons, including worsening pain and patient withdrawal, yielding 364 participants who were randomized to continue meloxicam treatment or placebo for 4 weeks with blinding.

Intervention. Subsequent to the 4-week phase 1 placebo controlled trial, participants in the placebo group were given CBT via telephone (unblinded) for 10 weeks, and the meloxicam group continued treatment with meloxicam for phase 2. The CBT group received 10 modules over 10 weeks in 30- to 45-minute telephone contacts with a psychologist using a treatment manual modified for knee osteoarthritis. These modules consisted of 1 introductory module, 8 pain coping skills modules (eg, deep breathing and visual imagery, progressive muscle relaxation, physical activity and bodily mechanics, identifying unhealthy thoughts, balancing unhealthy thoughts, managing stress, time-based pacing, and sleep hygiene), and a final module emphasizing skill consolidation and relapse prevention. Outcomes were assessed at the end of the phase 1 and phase 2 periods.

Main outcome measures. Main study outcome measures included pain as measured with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes included the WOMAC pain score, disability score, and global impression of change after treatment at 14 weeks. The WOMAC pain scale ranges from 0 to 20, and consists of 5 questions regarding severity of pain during walking, stair use, lying in bed at night, sitting, and standing, with 0 indicating no pain; 1, mild pain; 2, moderate pain; 3, severe pain; and 4, very severe pain for each item. The WOMAC disability scale measures self-reported difficulty in performing tasks that reflect lower-extremity physical function, including climbing stairs, rising from a chair, walking, and other activities of daily living. The global impression of change after treatment was measured on a 5-point scale (where 1 indicates much better and 5 indicates much worse). The minimum clinically important difference of the WOMAC pain scale is 2, based on prior literature. With the noninferiority design, the margin was set as a score of 1.

Main results. The placebo group consisted of 180 participants, with an average age of 58.2 years (SD, 11.8 years); 89% of them were male. The meloxicam group consisted of 184 participants, with an average age of 58.6 years (SD, 10 years); 84% of them were male. The average body mass index was 33.9 and 33.4 in each group, respectively. For the primary outcome, the placebo group had a worse pain score than the meloxicam group at 4 weeks (difference of 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.8- 2.0). At 14 weeks, the placebo group (with CBT) had a worse pain score than the meloxicam group (difference of 0.8; 95% CI, 0.2-1.4). There was no statistically significant difference in the disability score or global impression of change after treatment score between the 2 groups. The observed difference in pain score did not, however, exceed the minimum clinically important difference.

Conclusion. Placebo treatment and CBT are inferior to NSAIDs in managing pain for patients with knee osteoarthritis. The difference in pain may not be clinically important, and there were no differences in function at 14 weeks.

Commentary

Osteoarthritis is a common chronic condition that causes pain and disability and is often treated with oral analgesics. NSAIDs, despite few high-quality trials demonstrating their efficacy, are among the most commonly used treatment for osteoarthritis pain.¹ NSAID therapy, however, does have potential side effects, such as gastric reflux and renal dysfunction.² This withdrawal trial with placebo control contributes further evidence of the effectiveness of NSAIDs on knee osteoarthritis, demonstrating that indeed NSAIDs improve pain scores to a greater degree than placebo treatment. Augmenting placebo treatment with nonpharmacologic CBT was inferior to NSAIDs in pain management. The authors pointed out that the difference in pain score may not be clinically important, and that lower-extremity function was not different between the groups, concluding that, despite the higher pain score, CBT could be a treatment option, particularly for those who may have difficulty tolerating NSAID treatment.

The study population had a number of chronic conditions in addition to having knee arthritis, and thus likely were taking multiple medications for chronic disease management. Use of multiple medications is associated with an increased risk of rug interactions and adverse effects of medications.³ Thus, this attempt to assess whether a nonpharmacologic alternative treatment is noninferior to a drug treatment is a step toward building the evidence base for deprescribing and enhancing medication safety.⁴ Previous studies have examined other nonpharmacologic treatments for knee arthritis, such as acupuncture,⁵ and it is worthwhile to consider combining nonpharmacological approaches as an alternative to oral analgesic medication use.

Applications for Clinical Practice

This study advances our understanding of the effect of NSAID use on knee osteoarthritis when compared to placebo with CBT. Although this is a negative study that failed to show that placebo combined with CBT is noninferior to NSAIDs, it did quantify the expected treatment effect of NSAIDs and showed that this effect likely is not clinically important and/or does not alter lower-extremity function. Further studies are needed to identify other nonpharmacologic approaches and test whether combinations of approaches are effective in the management of chronic pain from osteoarthritis.

–William W. Hung, MD, MPH

Study Overview

Objective. To examine whether discontinuation of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy and initiation of telephone-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is not worse than continuation of NSAIDs in the management of arthritis pain.

Design. Randomized controlled trial with noninferiority design.

Setting and participants. This study was a multicenter trial conducted across 4 Veterans Affairs health care systems in Boston, Providence, Connecticut, and North Florida/South Georgia that started September 2013 and ended September 2018. Eligibility criteria included being age 20 years or older, radiographic evidence of knee osteoarthritis, and use of an NSAID for knee pain on most days of the month for at least the past 3 months. Exclusion criteria included significant hearing impairments that may impede the conduct of the trial, current opioid prescriptions excluding tramadol, contraindications to NSAID use, recent or scheduled intra-articular injections or surgery, comorbid conditions other than knee pain that limited walking, and bilateral knee replacements or pain only in the replaced knee. Concurrent use of tramadol and other non-NSAID analgesics was permitted.

A total of 490 participants took part in the 2-week run-in period where their NSAID regimen was discontinued and they were started on a standardized dose of the NSAID meloxicam 15 mg daily. During the run-in period, 126 participants were excluded for several reasons, including worsening pain and patient withdrawal, yielding 364 participants who were randomized to continue meloxicam treatment or placebo for 4 weeks with blinding.

Intervention. Subsequent to the 4-week phase 1 placebo controlled trial, participants in the placebo group were given CBT via telephone (unblinded) for 10 weeks, and the meloxicam group continued treatment with meloxicam for phase 2. The CBT group received 10 modules over 10 weeks in 30- to 45-minute telephone contacts with a psychologist using a treatment manual modified for knee osteoarthritis. These modules consisted of 1 introductory module, 8 pain coping skills modules (eg, deep breathing and visual imagery, progressive muscle relaxation, physical activity and bodily mechanics, identifying unhealthy thoughts, balancing unhealthy thoughts, managing stress, time-based pacing, and sleep hygiene), and a final module emphasizing skill consolidation and relapse prevention. Outcomes were assessed at the end of the phase 1 and phase 2 periods.

Main outcome measures. Main study outcome measures included pain as measured with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes included the WOMAC pain score, disability score, and global impression of change after treatment at 14 weeks. The WOMAC pain scale ranges from 0 to 20, and consists of 5 questions regarding severity of pain during walking, stair use, lying in bed at night, sitting, and standing, with 0 indicating no pain; 1, mild pain; 2, moderate pain; 3, severe pain; and 4, very severe pain for each item. The WOMAC disability scale measures self-reported difficulty in performing tasks that reflect lower-extremity physical function, including climbing stairs, rising from a chair, walking, and other activities of daily living. The global impression of change after treatment was measured on a 5-point scale (where 1 indicates much better and 5 indicates much worse). The minimum clinically important difference of the WOMAC pain scale is 2, based on prior literature. With the noninferiority design, the margin was set as a score of 1.

Main results. The placebo group consisted of 180 participants, with an average age of 58.2 years (SD, 11.8 years); 89% of them were male. The meloxicam group consisted of 184 participants, with an average age of 58.6 years (SD, 10 years); 84% of them were male. The average body mass index was 33.9 and 33.4 in each group, respectively. For the primary outcome, the placebo group had a worse pain score than the meloxicam group at 4 weeks (difference of 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.8- 2.0). At 14 weeks, the placebo group (with CBT) had a worse pain score than the meloxicam group (difference of 0.8; 95% CI, 0.2-1.4). There was no statistically significant difference in the disability score or global impression of change after treatment score between the 2 groups. The observed difference in pain score did not, however, exceed the minimum clinically important difference.

Conclusion. Placebo treatment and CBT are inferior to NSAIDs in managing pain for patients with knee osteoarthritis. The difference in pain may not be clinically important, and there were no differences in function at 14 weeks.

Commentary

Osteoarthritis is a common chronic condition that causes pain and disability and is often treated with oral analgesics. NSAIDs, despite few high-quality trials demonstrating their efficacy, are among the most commonly used treatment for osteoarthritis pain.¹ NSAID therapy, however, does have potential side effects, such as gastric reflux and renal dysfunction.² This withdrawal trial with placebo control contributes further evidence of the effectiveness of NSAIDs on knee osteoarthritis, demonstrating that indeed NSAIDs improve pain scores to a greater degree than placebo treatment. Augmenting placebo treatment with nonpharmacologic CBT was inferior to NSAIDs in pain management. The authors pointed out that the difference in pain score may not be clinically important, and that lower-extremity function was not different between the groups, concluding that, despite the higher pain score, CBT could be a treatment option, particularly for those who may have difficulty tolerating NSAID treatment.

The study population had a number of chronic conditions in addition to having knee arthritis, and thus likely were taking multiple medications for chronic disease management. Use of multiple medications is associated with an increased risk of rug interactions and adverse effects of medications.³ Thus, this attempt to assess whether a nonpharmacologic alternative treatment is noninferior to a drug treatment is a step toward building the evidence base for deprescribing and enhancing medication safety.⁴ Previous studies have examined other nonpharmacologic treatments for knee arthritis, such as acupuncture,⁵ and it is worthwhile to consider combining nonpharmacological approaches as an alternative to oral analgesic medication use.

Applications for Clinical Practice

This study advances our understanding of the effect of NSAID use on knee osteoarthritis when compared to placebo with CBT. Although this is a negative study that failed to show that placebo combined with CBT is noninferior to NSAIDs, it did quantify the expected treatment effect of NSAIDs and showed that this effect likely is not clinically important and/or does not alter lower-extremity function. Further studies are needed to identify other nonpharmacologic approaches and test whether combinations of approaches are effective in the management of chronic pain from osteoarthritis.

–William W. Hung, MD, MPH

Study Overview

Objective. To examine whether discontinuation of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy and initiation of telephone-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is not worse than continuation of NSAIDs in the management of arthritis pain.

Design. Randomized controlled trial with noninferiority design.

Setting and participants. This study was a multicenter trial conducted across 4 Veterans Affairs health care systems in Boston, Providence, Connecticut, and North Florida/South Georgia that started September 2013 and ended September 2018. Eligibility criteria included being age 20 years or older, radiographic evidence of knee osteoarthritis, and use of an NSAID for knee pain on most days of the month for at least the past 3 months. Exclusion criteria included significant hearing impairments that may impede the conduct of the trial, current opioid prescriptions excluding tramadol, contraindications to NSAID use, recent or scheduled intra-articular injections or surgery, comorbid conditions other than knee pain that limited walking, and bilateral knee replacements or pain only in the replaced knee. Concurrent use of tramadol and other non-NSAID analgesics was permitted.

A total of 490 participants took part in the 2-week run-in period where their NSAID regimen was discontinued and they were started on a standardized dose of the NSAID meloxicam 15 mg daily. During the run-in period, 126 participants were excluded for several reasons, including worsening pain and patient withdrawal, yielding 364 participants who were randomized to continue meloxicam treatment or placebo for 4 weeks with blinding.

Intervention. Subsequent to the 4-week phase 1 placebo controlled trial, participants in the placebo group were given CBT via telephone (unblinded) for 10 weeks, and the meloxicam group continued treatment with meloxicam for phase 2. The CBT group received 10 modules over 10 weeks in 30- to 45-minute telephone contacts with a psychologist using a treatment manual modified for knee osteoarthritis. These modules consisted of 1 introductory module, 8 pain coping skills modules (eg, deep breathing and visual imagery, progressive muscle relaxation, physical activity and bodily mechanics, identifying unhealthy thoughts, balancing unhealthy thoughts, managing stress, time-based pacing, and sleep hygiene), and a final module emphasizing skill consolidation and relapse prevention. Outcomes were assessed at the end of the phase 1 and phase 2 periods.

Main outcome measures. Main study outcome measures included pain as measured with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes included the WOMAC pain score, disability score, and global impression of change after treatment at 14 weeks. The WOMAC pain scale ranges from 0 to 20, and consists of 5 questions regarding severity of pain during walking, stair use, lying in bed at night, sitting, and standing, with 0 indicating no pain; 1, mild pain; 2, moderate pain; 3, severe pain; and 4, very severe pain for each item. The WOMAC disability scale measures self-reported difficulty in performing tasks that reflect lower-extremity physical function, including climbing stairs, rising from a chair, walking, and other activities of daily living. The global impression of change after treatment was measured on a 5-point scale (where 1 indicates much better and 5 indicates much worse). The minimum clinically important difference of the WOMAC pain scale is 2, based on prior literature. With the noninferiority design, the margin was set as a score of 1.

Main results. The placebo group consisted of 180 participants, with an average age of 58.2 years (SD, 11.8 years); 89% of them were male. The meloxicam group consisted of 184 participants, with an average age of 58.6 years (SD, 10 years); 84% of them were male. The average body mass index was 33.9 and 33.4 in each group, respectively. For the primary outcome, the placebo group had a worse pain score than the meloxicam group at 4 weeks (difference of 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.8- 2.0). At 14 weeks, the placebo group (with CBT) had a worse pain score than the meloxicam group (difference of 0.8; 95% CI, 0.2-1.4). There was no statistically significant difference in the disability score or global impression of change after treatment score between the 2 groups. The observed difference in pain score did not, however, exceed the minimum clinically important difference.

Conclusion. Placebo treatment and CBT are inferior to NSAIDs in managing pain for patients with knee osteoarthritis. The difference in pain may not be clinically important, and there were no differences in function at 14 weeks.

Commentary

Osteoarthritis is a common chronic condition that causes pain and disability and is often treated with oral analgesics. NSAIDs, despite few high-quality trials demonstrating their efficacy, are among the most commonly used treatment for osteoarthritis pain.¹ NSAID therapy, however, does have potential side effects, such as gastric reflux and renal dysfunction.² This withdrawal trial with placebo control contributes further evidence of the effectiveness of NSAIDs on knee osteoarthritis, demonstrating that indeed NSAIDs improve pain scores to a greater degree than placebo treatment. Augmenting placebo treatment with nonpharmacologic CBT was inferior to NSAIDs in pain management. The authors pointed out that the difference in pain score may not be clinically important, and that lower-extremity function was not different between the groups, concluding that, despite the higher pain score, CBT could be a treatment option, particularly for those who may have difficulty tolerating NSAID treatment.

The study population had a number of chronic conditions in addition to having knee arthritis, and thus likely were taking multiple medications for chronic disease management. Use of multiple medications is associated with an increased risk of rug interactions and adverse effects of medications.³ Thus, this attempt to assess whether a nonpharmacologic alternative treatment is noninferior to a drug treatment is a step toward building the evidence base for deprescribing and enhancing medication safety.⁴ Previous studies have examined other nonpharmacologic treatments for knee arthritis, such as acupuncture,⁵ and it is worthwhile to consider combining nonpharmacological approaches as an alternative to oral analgesic medication use.

Applications for Clinical Practice

This study advances our understanding of the effect of NSAID use on knee osteoarthritis when compared to placebo with CBT. Although this is a negative study that failed to show that placebo combined with CBT is noninferior to NSAIDs, it did quantify the expected treatment effect of NSAIDs and showed that this effect likely is not clinically important and/or does not alter lower-extremity function. Further studies are needed to identify other nonpharmacologic approaches and test whether combinations of approaches are effective in the management of chronic pain from osteoarthritis.

–William W. Hung, MD, MPH