Geriatrics

Delaying doses of denosumab after the first injection dramatically boosts the risk that patients with osteoporosis will suffer vertebral fractures, a new study confirms. Physicians say they are especially concerned about the risk facing patients who are delaying the treatment during the coronavirus pandemic.

doble-d/Getty Images

The recommended doses of denosumab are at 6-month intervals. Patients who delayed a dose by more than 16 weeks were nearly four times more likely to suffer vertebral fractures, compared with those who received on-time injections, according to the study, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Because patients who used denosumab were at high risk for vertebral fracture, strategies to improve timely administration of denosumab in routine clinical settings are needed,” wrote the study authors, led by Houchen Lyu, MD, PhD, of National Clinical Research Center for Orthopedics, Sports Medicine & Rehabilitation at General Hospital of Chinese PLA in Beijing.

Denosumab, a human monoclonal antibody, is used to reduce bone loss in osteoporosis. The manufacturer of Prolia, a brand of the drug, recommends it be given every 6 months, but the study reports that it’s common for injections to be delayed.

Researchers have linked cessation of denosumab to higher risk of fractures, and Dr. Lyu led a study published earlier this year that linked less-frequent doses to less bone mineral density improvement. “However,” the authors of the new study wrote, “whether delaying subsequent injections beyond the recommended 6-month interval is associated with fractures is unknown.”

For their new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed data from 2,594 patients in the U.K. 45 years or older (mean age, 76; 94% female; 53% with a history of major osteoporotic fracture) who began taking denosumab between 2010 and 2019. They used a design that aimed to emulate a clinical trial, comparing three dosing intervals: “on time” (within 4 weeks of the recommended 6-month interval), “short delay” (within 4-16 weeks) and “long delay” (16 weeks to 6 months).

The study found that the risk of composite fracture over 6 months out of 1,000 was 27.3 for on-time dosing, 32.2 for short-delay dosing, and 42.4 for long-delay dosing. The hazard ratio for long-delay versus on-time was 1.44 (95% confidence interval, 0.96-2.17; P = .093).

Vertebral fractures were less likely, but delays boosted the risk significantly: Over 6 months, it grew from 2.2 in 1,000 (on time) to 3.6 in 1,000 (short delay) and 10.1 in 1,000 (long delay). The HR for long delay versus on time was 3.91 (95% CI, 1.62-9.45; P = .005).

“This study had limited statistical power for composite fracture and several secondary end points ... except for vertebral fracture. Thus, evidence was insufficient to conclude that fracture risk was increased at other anatomical sites.”

In an accompanying editorial, two physicians from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, noted that the study is “timely and relevant” since the coronavirus pandemic may disrupt dosage schedules more than usual. While the study has limitations, the “findings are consistent with known denosumab pharmacokinetics and prior studies of fracture incidence after denosumab treatment discontinuation, wrote Kristine E. Ensrud, MD, MPH, who is also of Minneapolis VA Health Care System, and John T. Schousboe, MD, PhD, who is also of HealthPartners Institute.

The editorial authors noted that, in light of the pandemic, “some organizations recommend temporary transition to an oral bisphosphonate in patients receiving denosumab treatment for whom continued treatment is not feasible within 7 to 8 months of their most recent injection.”

In an interview, endocrinologist and osteoporosis specialist Ethel Siris, MD, of Columbia University, New York, said many of her patients aren’t coming in for denosumab injections during the pandemic. “It’s hard enough to get people to show up every 6 months to get their shot when things are going nicely,” she said. “We’re talking older women who may be on a lot of other medications. People forget, and it’s difficult for the office to constantly remind some of them to get their shots at an infusion center.”

The lack of symptoms is another challenge to getting patients to return for doses, she said. “In osteoporosis, the only time something hurts is if you break it.”

Since the pandemic began, many patients have been avoiding medical offices because of fear of getting the coronavirus.

The new research is helpful because it shows that patients are “more likely to fracture if they delay,” Dr. Siris noted. The endocrinologist added that she has successfully convinced some patients to give themselves subcutaneous injections in the abdomen at home.

Dr. Siris said she has been able to watch patients do these injections on video to check their technique. Her patients have been impressed by “how easy it is and delighted to have accomplished it,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health China’s National Clinical Research Center for Orthopedics, Sports Medicine & Rehabilitation. The study authors, commentary authors, and Dr. Siris report no relevant disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Lyu H et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jul 28. doi: 10.7326/M20-0882.

Delaying doses of denosumab after the first injection dramatically boosts the risk that patients with osteoporosis will suffer vertebral fractures, a new study confirms. Physicians say they are especially concerned about the risk facing patients who are delaying the treatment during the coronavirus pandemic.

doble-d/Getty Images

The recommended doses of denosumab are at 6-month intervals. Patients who delayed a dose by more than 16 weeks were nearly four times more likely to suffer vertebral fractures, compared with those who received on-time injections, according to the study, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Because patients who used denosumab were at high risk for vertebral fracture, strategies to improve timely administration of denosumab in routine clinical settings are needed,” wrote the study authors, led by Houchen Lyu, MD, PhD, of National Clinical Research Center for Orthopedics, Sports Medicine & Rehabilitation at General Hospital of Chinese PLA in Beijing.

Denosumab, a human monoclonal antibody, is used to reduce bone loss in osteoporosis. The manufacturer of Prolia, a brand of the drug, recommends it be given every 6 months, but the study reports that it’s common for injections to be delayed.

Researchers have linked cessation of denosumab to higher risk of fractures, and Dr. Lyu led a study published earlier this year that linked less-frequent doses to less bone mineral density improvement. “However,” the authors of the new study wrote, “whether delaying subsequent injections beyond the recommended 6-month interval is associated with fractures is unknown.”

For their new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed data from 2,594 patients in the U.K. 45 years or older (mean age, 76; 94% female; 53% with a history of major osteoporotic fracture) who began taking denosumab between 2010 and 2019. They used a design that aimed to emulate a clinical trial, comparing three dosing intervals: “on time” (within 4 weeks of the recommended 6-month interval), “short delay” (within 4-16 weeks) and “long delay” (16 weeks to 6 months).

The study found that the risk of composite fracture over 6 months out of 1,000 was 27.3 for on-time dosing, 32.2 for short-delay dosing, and 42.4 for long-delay dosing. The hazard ratio for long-delay versus on-time was 1.44 (95% confidence interval, 0.96-2.17; P = .093).

Vertebral fractures were less likely, but delays boosted the risk significantly: Over 6 months, it grew from 2.2 in 1,000 (on time) to 3.6 in 1,000 (short delay) and 10.1 in 1,000 (long delay). The HR for long delay versus on time was 3.91 (95% CI, 1.62-9.45; P = .005).

“This study had limited statistical power for composite fracture and several secondary end points ... except for vertebral fracture. Thus, evidence was insufficient to conclude that fracture risk was increased at other anatomical sites.”

In an accompanying editorial, two physicians from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, noted that the study is “timely and relevant” since the coronavirus pandemic may disrupt dosage schedules more than usual. While the study has limitations, the “findings are consistent with known denosumab pharmacokinetics and prior studies of fracture incidence after denosumab treatment discontinuation, wrote Kristine E. Ensrud, MD, MPH, who is also of Minneapolis VA Health Care System, and John T. Schousboe, MD, PhD, who is also of HealthPartners Institute.

The editorial authors noted that, in light of the pandemic, “some organizations recommend temporary transition to an oral bisphosphonate in patients receiving denosumab treatment for whom continued treatment is not feasible within 7 to 8 months of their most recent injection.”

In an interview, endocrinologist and osteoporosis specialist Ethel Siris, MD, of Columbia University, New York, said many of her patients aren’t coming in for denosumab injections during the pandemic. “It’s hard enough to get people to show up every 6 months to get their shot when things are going nicely,” she said. “We’re talking older women who may be on a lot of other medications. People forget, and it’s difficult for the office to constantly remind some of them to get their shots at an infusion center.”

The lack of symptoms is another challenge to getting patients to return for doses, she said. “In osteoporosis, the only time something hurts is if you break it.”

Since the pandemic began, many patients have been avoiding medical offices because of fear of getting the coronavirus.

The new research is helpful because it shows that patients are “more likely to fracture if they delay,” Dr. Siris noted. The endocrinologist added that she has successfully convinced some patients to give themselves subcutaneous injections in the abdomen at home.

Dr. Siris said she has been able to watch patients do these injections on video to check their technique. Her patients have been impressed by “how easy it is and delighted to have accomplished it,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health China’s National Clinical Research Center for Orthopedics, Sports Medicine & Rehabilitation. The study authors, commentary authors, and Dr. Siris report no relevant disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Lyu H et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jul 28. doi: 10.7326/M20-0882.

Delaying doses of denosumab after the first injection dramatically boosts the risk that patients with osteoporosis will suffer vertebral fractures, a new study confirms. Physicians say they are especially concerned about the risk facing patients who are delaying the treatment during the coronavirus pandemic.

doble-d/Getty Images

The recommended doses of denosumab are at 6-month intervals. Patients who delayed a dose by more than 16 weeks were nearly four times more likely to suffer vertebral fractures, compared with those who received on-time injections, according to the study, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Because patients who used denosumab were at high risk for vertebral fracture, strategies to improve timely administration of denosumab in routine clinical settings are needed,” wrote the study authors, led by Houchen Lyu, MD, PhD, of National Clinical Research Center for Orthopedics, Sports Medicine & Rehabilitation at General Hospital of Chinese PLA in Beijing.

Denosumab, a human monoclonal antibody, is used to reduce bone loss in osteoporosis. The manufacturer of Prolia, a brand of the drug, recommends it be given every 6 months, but the study reports that it’s common for injections to be delayed.

Researchers have linked cessation of denosumab to higher risk of fractures, and Dr. Lyu led a study published earlier this year that linked less-frequent doses to less bone mineral density improvement. “However,” the authors of the new study wrote, “whether delaying subsequent injections beyond the recommended 6-month interval is associated with fractures is unknown.”

For their new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed data from 2,594 patients in the U.K. 45 years or older (mean age, 76; 94% female; 53% with a history of major osteoporotic fracture) who began taking denosumab between 2010 and 2019. They used a design that aimed to emulate a clinical trial, comparing three dosing intervals: “on time” (within 4 weeks of the recommended 6-month interval), “short delay” (within 4-16 weeks) and “long delay” (16 weeks to 6 months).

The study found that the risk of composite fracture over 6 months out of 1,000 was 27.3 for on-time dosing, 32.2 for short-delay dosing, and 42.4 for long-delay dosing. The hazard ratio for long-delay versus on-time was 1.44 (95% confidence interval, 0.96-2.17; P = .093).

Vertebral fractures were less likely, but delays boosted the risk significantly: Over 6 months, it grew from 2.2 in 1,000 (on time) to 3.6 in 1,000 (short delay) and 10.1 in 1,000 (long delay). The HR for long delay versus on time was 3.91 (95% CI, 1.62-9.45; P = .005).

“This study had limited statistical power for composite fracture and several secondary end points ... except for vertebral fracture. Thus, evidence was insufficient to conclude that fracture risk was increased at other anatomical sites.”

In an accompanying editorial, two physicians from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, noted that the study is “timely and relevant” since the coronavirus pandemic may disrupt dosage schedules more than usual. While the study has limitations, the “findings are consistent with known denosumab pharmacokinetics and prior studies of fracture incidence after denosumab treatment discontinuation, wrote Kristine E. Ensrud, MD, MPH, who is also of Minneapolis VA Health Care System, and John T. Schousboe, MD, PhD, who is also of HealthPartners Institute.

The editorial authors noted that, in light of the pandemic, “some organizations recommend temporary transition to an oral bisphosphonate in patients receiving denosumab treatment for whom continued treatment is not feasible within 7 to 8 months of their most recent injection.”

In an interview, endocrinologist and osteoporosis specialist Ethel Siris, MD, of Columbia University, New York, said many of her patients aren’t coming in for denosumab injections during the pandemic. “It’s hard enough to get people to show up every 6 months to get their shot when things are going nicely,” she said. “We’re talking older women who may be on a lot of other medications. People forget, and it’s difficult for the office to constantly remind some of them to get their shots at an infusion center.”

The lack of symptoms is another challenge to getting patients to return for doses, she said. “In osteoporosis, the only time something hurts is if you break it.”

Since the pandemic began, many patients have been avoiding medical offices because of fear of getting the coronavirus.

The new research is helpful because it shows that patients are “more likely to fracture if they delay,” Dr. Siris noted. The endocrinologist added that she has successfully convinced some patients to give themselves subcutaneous injections in the abdomen at home.

Dr. Siris said she has been able to watch patients do these injections on video to check their technique. Her patients have been impressed by “how easy it is and delighted to have accomplished it,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health China’s National Clinical Research Center for Orthopedics, Sports Medicine & Rehabilitation. The study authors, commentary authors, and Dr. Siris report no relevant disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Lyu H et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jul 28. doi: 10.7326/M20-0882.

Two experts in geriatric diabetes are offering some contemporary practical recommendations for diabetes management in older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.  

The viewpoint, entitled, “Caring for Older Adults With Diabetes During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine by Medha N. Munshi, MD, director of the geriatrics program at the Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston, and Sarah L. Sy, MD, a geriatrician in the same program.

Adults aged 70 years and older with comorbidities such as diabetes are among those at highest risk for adverse outcomes and mortality due to COVID-19.

At the same time, those who don’t have the illness face major challenges in avoiding it, including disruptions in normal activities and barriers to receiving health care.

Although telemedicine has become much more widely adopted in diabetes management since the pandemic began, older adults may not be as tech savvy, may not have computer or Internet access, and/or may have cognitive dysfunction that precludes its use.

“These unprecedented times pose a great challenge to this heterogeneous population with varying levels of complexity, frailty, and multimorbidity,” Munshi and Sy point out, noting that “clinicians can lessen the load by guiding, reassuring, and supporting them through this pandemic time.”

Because the pandemic could last for several months longer, the authors offer the following advice for clinicians who care for older adults with diabetes.

• Accessibility to health care: When possible, use telemedicine, diabetes care apps, or platforms to obtain data from glucose meters, continuous glucose monitors, and/or pumps. When use of technology isn’t possible, schedule telephone appointments and have the patient or caregiver read the glucose values.
• Multicomplexity and geriatric syndromes: Identify high-risk patients, such as those with or recurrent , and prioritize patient goals. If appropriate, simplify the diabetes treatment plan and reinforce with repeated education and instructions. Glucose goals may need to be liberalized. Advise patients to stay hydrated to minimize the risk of dehydration and falls. Take steps to avoid hypoglycemia, reduce polypharmacy, and consolidate medication doses.
• Burden of diabetes self-care: Bloodwork for can be delayed by a few months. Patients with  can decrease the frequency of blood glucose checks if their glucose levels are generally within acceptable range. Encourage patients to eat healthily with regular meals rather than optimizing the diet for glucose levels, and adjust medications for any changes in diet. Advise safe options for physical activity such as walking inside the home or walking in place for 10 minutes, three times per day, and incorporating strength training, such as with resistance bands. Online exercise programs are another option.
• Psychological stress: Check in with patients and encourage them to stay as connected as possible using technology (phone, video chat, text message), letters, or cards with family, friends, and/or religious communities. Screen for , using either the Geriatric Depression Scale or Patient Health Questionnaire-2, and refer to mental health colleagues if appropriate. Speak or email with caregivers to assess the patient’s mental health state and offer local support resources, if needed.
• Medication and equipment issues: Refill 90-day prescriptions and equipment, and request mail or home (contactless) delivery. Patients should also have backups in case of equipment failures, such as syringes and long-acting insulin in case of pump failure, and test strips/meter for continuous glucose monitor problems.

Munshi and Sy conclude: “Many of the recommendations presented in this article are practical and will continue to be relevant after COVID-19. When this is all over, patients will remember how we made them feel, and how we kept them safe and healthy at home.”

Munshi is a consultant for Sanofi and Lilly. Sy has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two experts in geriatric diabetes are offering some contemporary practical recommendations for diabetes management in older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.  

The viewpoint, entitled, “Caring for Older Adults With Diabetes During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine by Medha N. Munshi, MD, director of the geriatrics program at the Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston, and Sarah L. Sy, MD, a geriatrician in the same program.

Adults aged 70 years and older with comorbidities such as diabetes are among those at highest risk for adverse outcomes and mortality due to COVID-19.

At the same time, those who don’t have the illness face major challenges in avoiding it, including disruptions in normal activities and barriers to receiving health care.

Although telemedicine has become much more widely adopted in diabetes management since the pandemic began, older adults may not be as tech savvy, may not have computer or Internet access, and/or may have cognitive dysfunction that precludes its use.

“These unprecedented times pose a great challenge to this heterogeneous population with varying levels of complexity, frailty, and multimorbidity,” Munshi and Sy point out, noting that “clinicians can lessen the load by guiding, reassuring, and supporting them through this pandemic time.”

Because the pandemic could last for several months longer, the authors offer the following advice for clinicians who care for older adults with diabetes.

• Accessibility to health care: When possible, use telemedicine, diabetes care apps, or platforms to obtain data from glucose meters, continuous glucose monitors, and/or pumps. When use of technology isn’t possible, schedule telephone appointments and have the patient or caregiver read the glucose values.
• Multicomplexity and geriatric syndromes: Identify high-risk patients, such as those with or recurrent , and prioritize patient goals. If appropriate, simplify the diabetes treatment plan and reinforce with repeated education and instructions. Glucose goals may need to be liberalized. Advise patients to stay hydrated to minimize the risk of dehydration and falls. Take steps to avoid hypoglycemia, reduce polypharmacy, and consolidate medication doses.
• Burden of diabetes self-care: Bloodwork for can be delayed by a few months. Patients with  can decrease the frequency of blood glucose checks if their glucose levels are generally within acceptable range. Encourage patients to eat healthily with regular meals rather than optimizing the diet for glucose levels, and adjust medications for any changes in diet. Advise safe options for physical activity such as walking inside the home or walking in place for 10 minutes, three times per day, and incorporating strength training, such as with resistance bands. Online exercise programs are another option.
• Psychological stress: Check in with patients and encourage them to stay as connected as possible using technology (phone, video chat, text message), letters, or cards with family, friends, and/or religious communities. Screen for , using either the Geriatric Depression Scale or Patient Health Questionnaire-2, and refer to mental health colleagues if appropriate. Speak or email with caregivers to assess the patient’s mental health state and offer local support resources, if needed.
• Medication and equipment issues: Refill 90-day prescriptions and equipment, and request mail or home (contactless) delivery. Patients should also have backups in case of equipment failures, such as syringes and long-acting insulin in case of pump failure, and test strips/meter for continuous glucose monitor problems.

Munshi and Sy conclude: “Many of the recommendations presented in this article are practical and will continue to be relevant after COVID-19. When this is all over, patients will remember how we made them feel, and how we kept them safe and healthy at home.”

Munshi is a consultant for Sanofi and Lilly. Sy has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two experts in geriatric diabetes are offering some contemporary practical recommendations for diabetes management in older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.  

The viewpoint, entitled, “Caring for Older Adults With Diabetes During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine by Medha N. Munshi, MD, director of the geriatrics program at the Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston, and Sarah L. Sy, MD, a geriatrician in the same program.

Adults aged 70 years and older with comorbidities such as diabetes are among those at highest risk for adverse outcomes and mortality due to COVID-19.

At the same time, those who don’t have the illness face major challenges in avoiding it, including disruptions in normal activities and barriers to receiving health care.

Although telemedicine has become much more widely adopted in diabetes management since the pandemic began, older adults may not be as tech savvy, may not have computer or Internet access, and/or may have cognitive dysfunction that precludes its use.

“These unprecedented times pose a great challenge to this heterogeneous population with varying levels of complexity, frailty, and multimorbidity,” Munshi and Sy point out, noting that “clinicians can lessen the load by guiding, reassuring, and supporting them through this pandemic time.”

Because the pandemic could last for several months longer, the authors offer the following advice for clinicians who care for older adults with diabetes.

• Accessibility to health care: When possible, use telemedicine, diabetes care apps, or platforms to obtain data from glucose meters, continuous glucose monitors, and/or pumps. When use of technology isn’t possible, schedule telephone appointments and have the patient or caregiver read the glucose values.
• Multicomplexity and geriatric syndromes: Identify high-risk patients, such as those with or recurrent , and prioritize patient goals. If appropriate, simplify the diabetes treatment plan and reinforce with repeated education and instructions. Glucose goals may need to be liberalized. Advise patients to stay hydrated to minimize the risk of dehydration and falls. Take steps to avoid hypoglycemia, reduce polypharmacy, and consolidate medication doses.
• Burden of diabetes self-care: Bloodwork for can be delayed by a few months. Patients with  can decrease the frequency of blood glucose checks if their glucose levels are generally within acceptable range. Encourage patients to eat healthily with regular meals rather than optimizing the diet for glucose levels, and adjust medications for any changes in diet. Advise safe options for physical activity such as walking inside the home or walking in place for 10 minutes, three times per day, and incorporating strength training, such as with resistance bands. Online exercise programs are another option.
• Psychological stress: Check in with patients and encourage them to stay as connected as possible using technology (phone, video chat, text message), letters, or cards with family, friends, and/or religious communities. Screen for , using either the Geriatric Depression Scale or Patient Health Questionnaire-2, and refer to mental health colleagues if appropriate. Speak or email with caregivers to assess the patient’s mental health state and offer local support resources, if needed.
• Medication and equipment issues: Refill 90-day prescriptions and equipment, and request mail or home (contactless) delivery. Patients should also have backups in case of equipment failures, such as syringes and long-acting insulin in case of pump failure, and test strips/meter for continuous glucose monitor problems.

Munshi and Sy conclude: “Many of the recommendations presented in this article are practical and will continue to be relevant after COVID-19. When this is all over, patients will remember how we made them feel, and how we kept them safe and healthy at home.”

Munshi is a consultant for Sanofi and Lilly. Sy has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An intervention designed to prevent serious fall injuries among older adults was less effective than researchers expected but did identify important ways for clinicians to help, including screening all older patients for fall risk and deprescribing certain medications when possible.

The study was conducted by Shalender Bhasin, MD, MBBS, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues on behalf of the Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) trial investigators and was published online July 8 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Patients are often unaware of their increased risk until they have fallen for the first time, and they often underestimate how many of their risk factors can be improved, Dr. Bhasin said in an interview.

“Fall injuries are a very important cause of injury-related deaths among older adults, and these are preventable. Yet they are so difficult; for 30 years the rates of fall injuries have not declined,” he said.

Using a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial, the researchers studied the clinical effectiveness of a “patient-centered intervention that combined elements of practice redesign (reconfiguration of workflow to improve quality of care) and an evidence-based, multifactorial, individually tailored intervention implemented by specially trained nurses in primary care settings,” the authors explained.

Participants in the intervention group worked with trained nurses (fall care managers) to identify their risk factors and determine which risks they wanted to modify. Participants in the control group received their typical care and a pamphlet with information on falls and were encouraged to talk with their primary care physicians (who received the results on risk factor screening) about fall prevention. Those in the intervention group also received the pamphlet.

Fall care managers evaluated patients’ home environments and in some cases visited the patient’s home, Dr. Bhasin said.

The researchers enrolled community-dwelling adults aged 70 years or older who were at higher risk for fall injuries from 86 primary care practices across 10 U.S. health care systems. Half of the practices were randomly assigned to provide the intervention to their patients; the other half of the practices provided enhanced usual care.

The researchers defined patients with increased risk for fall injuries as those who had suffered a fall-related injury at least twice during the previous year or those whose difficulties with balance or walking made them fearful of falling. Serious fall injuries were defined as falls that cause a fracture (other than a thoracic or lumbar vertebral fracture), joint dislocation, a cut needing closure, or falls that resulted in hospital admission for a “head injury, sprain or strain, bruising or swelling, or other serious injury,” they explained.

Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar for both groups of patients (mean age, 80 years; 62.0% women); 38.9% had experienced a fall-related injury during the previous year, and 35.1% had suffered at least two falls during the previous year.

The researchers hypothesized that serious fall injuries would be 20% lower in the intervention group, compared with the control group, but that was not the case.

The findings showed no significant difference between the intervention group (4.9 events per 100 person-years of follow-up) and the control group (5.3 events per 100 person-years of follow-up) for the rate of first adjudicated serious fall injury (hazard ratio, 0.92; P = .25). Results were similar in a practice-level analysis and a sensitivity analysis adjusted for participant-level covariates.

However, there was a difference in rates of first participant-reported fall injury, which was a secondary endpoint, at 25.6 events per 100 person-years of follow-up among participants in the intervention group versus 28.6 events among those in the control group (HR, 0.90; P = .004).

There were no significant differences between the groups for rates of all adjudicated serious fall injuries and all patient-reported fall injuries. Bone fractures and injuries resulting in hospitalization were the most frequent types of adjudicated serious fall injuries.

Rates of serious adverse events resulting in hospitalization were similar for the intervention group and the control group (32.8 and 33.3 hospitalizations per 100 person-years of follow-up, respectively), as well as rates of death (3.3 deaths per 100 person-years of follow-up in both groups).
 

Simple steps can help

“The most important thing clinicians can do is a quick screen for fall injury risk,” Dr. Bhasin said in an interview. The screening tool he uses consists of three questions and can be completed in less than a minute. Clinicians should share that information with patients, he continued.

“Just recognizing that they are at risk for falls, patients are much more motivated to take action,” Dr. Bhasin added.

The top three risk factors identified among trial participants were trouble with strength, gait, or balance; osteoporosis or vitamin D deficiency; and impaired vision. “The use of certain medications, postural hypotension, problems with feet or footwear, and home safety hazards were less commonly identified, and the use of certain medications was the least commonly prioritized,” the authors wrote.

It is vital that clinicians help patients implement changes, Dr. Bhasin said. He noted that many patients encounter barriers that prevent them from taking action, including transportation or insurance problems and lack of access to exercise programs in the community.

Deprescribing medications such as sleep medications and benzodiazepines is also a key piece of the puzzle, he added. “They’re pretty huge risks, and yet it is so hard to get people off these medications.”

Future research will focus on how to improve the intervention’s effectiveness and also will test the strategy among those with cognitive impairments who have even higher risk for fall injuries, Dr. Bhasin said.
 

Falls remain common

A report published online July 9 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report underscores the prevalence of fall-related injuries: In 2018, more than one quarter (27.5%) of adults 65 years or older said they had fallen at least once during the previous year (35.6 million falls), and 10.2% said they had experienced a fall-related injury (8.4 million fall-related injuries). The percentage of adults who reported a fall increased during 2012-2016, then decreased during 2016-2018.

Briana Moreland, MPH, from Synergy America and the Division of Injury Prevention at National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and colleagues wrote that older adults and health care providers can work together to reduce fall risk.

“CDC created the Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths and Injuries (STEADI) initiative, which offers tools and resources for health care providers to screen their older patients for fall risk, assess modifiable fall risk factors, and to intervene with evidence-based fall prevention interventions (https://www.cdc.gov/steadi). These include medication management, vision screening, home modifications, referral to physical therapists who can address problems with gait, strength, and balance, and referral to effective community-based fall prevention programs,” Ms. Moreland and colleagues explain.

Dr. Bhasin has received grants from the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) during the conduct of the study. He has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AbbVie; grants from Transition Therapeutics, Alivegen, and Metro International Biotechnology; and personal fees from OPKO outside the submitted work. A coauthor received grants from the NIA and PCORI during the conduct of the study and is co-owner of Lynx Health, and another Peduzzi received grants and other compensation from NIA-PCORI during the conduct of the study. Two other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The remaining authors report a variety of relevant financial relationships; a complete list is available on the journal’s website. The authors of the article in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An intervention designed to prevent serious fall injuries among older adults was less effective than researchers expected but did identify important ways for clinicians to help, including screening all older patients for fall risk and deprescribing certain medications when possible.

The study was conducted by Shalender Bhasin, MD, MBBS, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues on behalf of the Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) trial investigators and was published online July 8 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Patients are often unaware of their increased risk until they have fallen for the first time, and they often underestimate how many of their risk factors can be improved, Dr. Bhasin said in an interview.

“Fall injuries are a very important cause of injury-related deaths among older adults, and these are preventable. Yet they are so difficult; for 30 years the rates of fall injuries have not declined,” he said.

Using a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial, the researchers studied the clinical effectiveness of a “patient-centered intervention that combined elements of practice redesign (reconfiguration of workflow to improve quality of care) and an evidence-based, multifactorial, individually tailored intervention implemented by specially trained nurses in primary care settings,” the authors explained.

Participants in the intervention group worked with trained nurses (fall care managers) to identify their risk factors and determine which risks they wanted to modify. Participants in the control group received their typical care and a pamphlet with information on falls and were encouraged to talk with their primary care physicians (who received the results on risk factor screening) about fall prevention. Those in the intervention group also received the pamphlet.

Fall care managers evaluated patients’ home environments and in some cases visited the patient’s home, Dr. Bhasin said.

The researchers enrolled community-dwelling adults aged 70 years or older who were at higher risk for fall injuries from 86 primary care practices across 10 U.S. health care systems. Half of the practices were randomly assigned to provide the intervention to their patients; the other half of the practices provided enhanced usual care.

The researchers defined patients with increased risk for fall injuries as those who had suffered a fall-related injury at least twice during the previous year or those whose difficulties with balance or walking made them fearful of falling. Serious fall injuries were defined as falls that cause a fracture (other than a thoracic or lumbar vertebral fracture), joint dislocation, a cut needing closure, or falls that resulted in hospital admission for a “head injury, sprain or strain, bruising or swelling, or other serious injury,” they explained.

Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar for both groups of patients (mean age, 80 years; 62.0% women); 38.9% had experienced a fall-related injury during the previous year, and 35.1% had suffered at least two falls during the previous year.

The researchers hypothesized that serious fall injuries would be 20% lower in the intervention group, compared with the control group, but that was not the case.

The findings showed no significant difference between the intervention group (4.9 events per 100 person-years of follow-up) and the control group (5.3 events per 100 person-years of follow-up) for the rate of first adjudicated serious fall injury (hazard ratio, 0.92; P = .25). Results were similar in a practice-level analysis and a sensitivity analysis adjusted for participant-level covariates.

However, there was a difference in rates of first participant-reported fall injury, which was a secondary endpoint, at 25.6 events per 100 person-years of follow-up among participants in the intervention group versus 28.6 events among those in the control group (HR, 0.90; P = .004).

There were no significant differences between the groups for rates of all adjudicated serious fall injuries and all patient-reported fall injuries. Bone fractures and injuries resulting in hospitalization were the most frequent types of adjudicated serious fall injuries.

Rates of serious adverse events resulting in hospitalization were similar for the intervention group and the control group (32.8 and 33.3 hospitalizations per 100 person-years of follow-up, respectively), as well as rates of death (3.3 deaths per 100 person-years of follow-up in both groups).
 

Simple steps can help

“The most important thing clinicians can do is a quick screen for fall injury risk,” Dr. Bhasin said in an interview. The screening tool he uses consists of three questions and can be completed in less than a minute. Clinicians should share that information with patients, he continued.

“Just recognizing that they are at risk for falls, patients are much more motivated to take action,” Dr. Bhasin added.

The top three risk factors identified among trial participants were trouble with strength, gait, or balance; osteoporosis or vitamin D deficiency; and impaired vision. “The use of certain medications, postural hypotension, problems with feet or footwear, and home safety hazards were less commonly identified, and the use of certain medications was the least commonly prioritized,” the authors wrote.

It is vital that clinicians help patients implement changes, Dr. Bhasin said. He noted that many patients encounter barriers that prevent them from taking action, including transportation or insurance problems and lack of access to exercise programs in the community.

Deprescribing medications such as sleep medications and benzodiazepines is also a key piece of the puzzle, he added. “They’re pretty huge risks, and yet it is so hard to get people off these medications.”

Future research will focus on how to improve the intervention’s effectiveness and also will test the strategy among those with cognitive impairments who have even higher risk for fall injuries, Dr. Bhasin said.
 

Falls remain common

A report published online July 9 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report underscores the prevalence of fall-related injuries: In 2018, more than one quarter (27.5%) of adults 65 years or older said they had fallen at least once during the previous year (35.6 million falls), and 10.2% said they had experienced a fall-related injury (8.4 million fall-related injuries). The percentage of adults who reported a fall increased during 2012-2016, then decreased during 2016-2018.

Briana Moreland, MPH, from Synergy America and the Division of Injury Prevention at National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and colleagues wrote that older adults and health care providers can work together to reduce fall risk.

“CDC created the Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths and Injuries (STEADI) initiative, which offers tools and resources for health care providers to screen their older patients for fall risk, assess modifiable fall risk factors, and to intervene with evidence-based fall prevention interventions (https://www.cdc.gov/steadi). These include medication management, vision screening, home modifications, referral to physical therapists who can address problems with gait, strength, and balance, and referral to effective community-based fall prevention programs,” Ms. Moreland and colleagues explain.

Dr. Bhasin has received grants from the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) during the conduct of the study. He has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AbbVie; grants from Transition Therapeutics, Alivegen, and Metro International Biotechnology; and personal fees from OPKO outside the submitted work. A coauthor received grants from the NIA and PCORI during the conduct of the study and is co-owner of Lynx Health, and another Peduzzi received grants and other compensation from NIA-PCORI during the conduct of the study. Two other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The remaining authors report a variety of relevant financial relationships; a complete list is available on the journal’s website. The authors of the article in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An intervention designed to prevent serious fall injuries among older adults was less effective than researchers expected but did identify important ways for clinicians to help, including screening all older patients for fall risk and deprescribing certain medications when possible.

The study was conducted by Shalender Bhasin, MD, MBBS, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues on behalf of the Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) trial investigators and was published online July 8 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Patients are often unaware of their increased risk until they have fallen for the first time, and they often underestimate how many of their risk factors can be improved, Dr. Bhasin said in an interview.

“Fall injuries are a very important cause of injury-related deaths among older adults, and these are preventable. Yet they are so difficult; for 30 years the rates of fall injuries have not declined,” he said.

Using a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial, the researchers studied the clinical effectiveness of a “patient-centered intervention that combined elements of practice redesign (reconfiguration of workflow to improve quality of care) and an evidence-based, multifactorial, individually tailored intervention implemented by specially trained nurses in primary care settings,” the authors explained.

Participants in the intervention group worked with trained nurses (fall care managers) to identify their risk factors and determine which risks they wanted to modify. Participants in the control group received their typical care and a pamphlet with information on falls and were encouraged to talk with their primary care physicians (who received the results on risk factor screening) about fall prevention. Those in the intervention group also received the pamphlet.

Fall care managers evaluated patients’ home environments and in some cases visited the patient’s home, Dr. Bhasin said.

The researchers enrolled community-dwelling adults aged 70 years or older who were at higher risk for fall injuries from 86 primary care practices across 10 U.S. health care systems. Half of the practices were randomly assigned to provide the intervention to their patients; the other half of the practices provided enhanced usual care.

The researchers defined patients with increased risk for fall injuries as those who had suffered a fall-related injury at least twice during the previous year or those whose difficulties with balance or walking made them fearful of falling. Serious fall injuries were defined as falls that cause a fracture (other than a thoracic or lumbar vertebral fracture), joint dislocation, a cut needing closure, or falls that resulted in hospital admission for a “head injury, sprain or strain, bruising or swelling, or other serious injury,” they explained.

Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar for both groups of patients (mean age, 80 years; 62.0% women); 38.9% had experienced a fall-related injury during the previous year, and 35.1% had suffered at least two falls during the previous year.

The researchers hypothesized that serious fall injuries would be 20% lower in the intervention group, compared with the control group, but that was not the case.

The findings showed no significant difference between the intervention group (4.9 events per 100 person-years of follow-up) and the control group (5.3 events per 100 person-years of follow-up) for the rate of first adjudicated serious fall injury (hazard ratio, 0.92; P = .25). Results were similar in a practice-level analysis and a sensitivity analysis adjusted for participant-level covariates.

However, there was a difference in rates of first participant-reported fall injury, which was a secondary endpoint, at 25.6 events per 100 person-years of follow-up among participants in the intervention group versus 28.6 events among those in the control group (HR, 0.90; P = .004).

There were no significant differences between the groups for rates of all adjudicated serious fall injuries and all patient-reported fall injuries. Bone fractures and injuries resulting in hospitalization were the most frequent types of adjudicated serious fall injuries.

Rates of serious adverse events resulting in hospitalization were similar for the intervention group and the control group (32.8 and 33.3 hospitalizations per 100 person-years of follow-up, respectively), as well as rates of death (3.3 deaths per 100 person-years of follow-up in both groups).
 

Simple steps can help

“The most important thing clinicians can do is a quick screen for fall injury risk,” Dr. Bhasin said in an interview. The screening tool he uses consists of three questions and can be completed in less than a minute. Clinicians should share that information with patients, he continued.

“Just recognizing that they are at risk for falls, patients are much more motivated to take action,” Dr. Bhasin added.

The top three risk factors identified among trial participants were trouble with strength, gait, or balance; osteoporosis or vitamin D deficiency; and impaired vision. “The use of certain medications, postural hypotension, problems with feet or footwear, and home safety hazards were less commonly identified, and the use of certain medications was the least commonly prioritized,” the authors wrote.

It is vital that clinicians help patients implement changes, Dr. Bhasin said. He noted that many patients encounter barriers that prevent them from taking action, including transportation or insurance problems and lack of access to exercise programs in the community.

Deprescribing medications such as sleep medications and benzodiazepines is also a key piece of the puzzle, he added. “They’re pretty huge risks, and yet it is so hard to get people off these medications.”

Future research will focus on how to improve the intervention’s effectiveness and also will test the strategy among those with cognitive impairments who have even higher risk for fall injuries, Dr. Bhasin said.
 

Falls remain common

A report published online July 9 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report underscores the prevalence of fall-related injuries: In 2018, more than one quarter (27.5%) of adults 65 years or older said they had fallen at least once during the previous year (35.6 million falls), and 10.2% said they had experienced a fall-related injury (8.4 million fall-related injuries). The percentage of adults who reported a fall increased during 2012-2016, then decreased during 2016-2018.

Briana Moreland, MPH, from Synergy America and the Division of Injury Prevention at National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and colleagues wrote that older adults and health care providers can work together to reduce fall risk.

“CDC created the Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths and Injuries (STEADI) initiative, which offers tools and resources for health care providers to screen their older patients for fall risk, assess modifiable fall risk factors, and to intervene with evidence-based fall prevention interventions (https://www.cdc.gov/steadi). These include medication management, vision screening, home modifications, referral to physical therapists who can address problems with gait, strength, and balance, and referral to effective community-based fall prevention programs,” Ms. Moreland and colleagues explain.

Dr. Bhasin has received grants from the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) during the conduct of the study. He has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AbbVie; grants from Transition Therapeutics, Alivegen, and Metro International Biotechnology; and personal fees from OPKO outside the submitted work. A coauthor received grants from the NIA and PCORI during the conduct of the study and is co-owner of Lynx Health, and another Peduzzi received grants and other compensation from NIA-PCORI during the conduct of the study. Two other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The remaining authors report a variety of relevant financial relationships; a complete list is available on the journal’s website. The authors of the article in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study has determined a benefit of cardiac CT scans beyond assessing heart health: Evaluating fracture rate and potential osteoporosis through the bone mineral density (BMD) of thoracic vertebrae.

“Our results represent a step toward appraisal and recognition of the clinical utility of opportunistic BMD screening from cardiac CT,” wrote Josephine Therkildsen, MD, of Hospital Unit West in Herning, Denmark, and coauthors. The study was published July 14 in Radiology.

To determine if further analysis of cardiac CT could help determine BMD and its association with fracture rate, the investigators launched a prospective observational study of 1,487 Danish patients with potential coronary artery disease who underwent cardiac CT scans between September 2014 and March 2016. Their mean age was 57 years (standard deviation, 9; range, 40-80). Nearly all of the patients were white, and 52.5% (n = 781) were women.

All participants underwent a noncontrast-enhanced cardiac CT, from which volumetric BMD of three thoracic vertebrae was measured via commercially available semiautomatic software. Their mean BMD was 119 mg/cm³ (SD, 34) with no significant difference noted between male and female patients. Of the 1,487 participants, 695 were defined as having normal BMD (> 120 mg/cm³), 613 as having low BMD (80-120 mg/cm³), and 179 as having very low BMD (< 80 mg/cm³). Median follow-up was 3.1 years (interquartile range, 2.7-3.4).

Incident fracture occurred in 80 patients (5.4%), of whom 48 were women and 32 were men. Patients who suffered fractures were significantly older than patients with no fractures (mean 59 years vs. 57 years; P = .03). Of the 80 patients with fractures, 31 were osteoporosis related.

In an unadjusted analysis, participants with very low BMD had a greater rate of any fracture (hazard ratio [HR], 2.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-4.7; P = .002) and of osteoporosis-related fracture (HR, 8.1; 95% CI, 2.4-27.0; P = .001). After adjustment for age and sex, their rates remained significantly greater for any fracture (HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-4.2; P = .03) and for osteoporosis-related fracture (HR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.1-15.0; P = .04).

“Opportunistic” use of scans benefits both physicians and patients

“The concept of using a CT scan that was done for a different purpose allows you to be opportunistic,” Ethel S. Siris, MD, the Madeline C. Stabile Professor of Clinical Medicine in the department of medicine at Columbia University and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center of the Columbia University Medical Center, New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, said in an interview. “If you’re dealing with older patients, and if you have the software for your radiologist to use to reanalyze the CT scan and say something about the bone, it’s certainly a way of estimating who may be at risk of future fractures.

“From a practical point of view, it’s hard to imagine that it would ever replace conventional bone mineral density testing via DXA [dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry],” she added. “That said, osteoporosis is woefully underdiagnosed because people don’t get DXA tested. This study showed that, if you have access to the scan of the thoracic or even the lumbar spine and if you have the necessary software, you can make legitimate statements about the numbers being low or very low. What that would lead to, I would hope, is some internists to say, ‘This could be a predictor of fracture risk. We should put you on treatment.’ And then follow up with a conventional DXA test.

“Is that going to happen? I don’t know. But the bottom line of the study is: Anything that may enhance the physician’s drive to evaluate a patient for fracture risk is good.”
 

Whatever the reason for the scan, CT can help diagnose osteoporosis

This study reinforces that CT exams – of the chest, in particular – can serve a valuable dual purpose as osteoporosis screenings, Miriam A. Bredella, MD, professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School and vice chair of the department of radiology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“In the United States, more than 80 million CT examinations are performed each year, many of which could be used to screen for osteoporosis without additional costs or radiation exposure,” she wrote. And thanks to the findings of the study by Therkildsen et al., which relied on both established and new BMD thresholds, the link between thoracic spine BMD and fracture risk is clearer than ever.

“I hope this study will ignite interest in using chest CT examinations performed for other purposes, such as lung cancer screening, for opportunistic osteoporosis screening and prediction of fractures in vulnerable populations,” she added.

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a small number of fracture events overall and the inability to evaluate associations between BMD and fracture rate at specific locations. In addition, their cohort was largely made up of white participants with a certain coronary artery disease risk profile; because of ethnical differences in BMD measurements, their results “cannot be extrapolated to other ethnical groups.”

Several of the study’s authors reported potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and money for consultancies and board memberships from various councils, associations, and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Bredella reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Siris has no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Therkildsen J et al. Radiology. 2020 Jul 14. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020192706.

A new study has determined a benefit of cardiac CT scans beyond assessing heart health: Evaluating fracture rate and potential osteoporosis through the bone mineral density (BMD) of thoracic vertebrae.

“Our results represent a step toward appraisal and recognition of the clinical utility of opportunistic BMD screening from cardiac CT,” wrote Josephine Therkildsen, MD, of Hospital Unit West in Herning, Denmark, and coauthors. The study was published July 14 in Radiology.

To determine if further analysis of cardiac CT could help determine BMD and its association with fracture rate, the investigators launched a prospective observational study of 1,487 Danish patients with potential coronary artery disease who underwent cardiac CT scans between September 2014 and March 2016. Their mean age was 57 years (standard deviation, 9; range, 40-80). Nearly all of the patients were white, and 52.5% (n = 781) were women.

All participants underwent a noncontrast-enhanced cardiac CT, from which volumetric BMD of three thoracic vertebrae was measured via commercially available semiautomatic software. Their mean BMD was 119 mg/cm³ (SD, 34) with no significant difference noted between male and female patients. Of the 1,487 participants, 695 were defined as having normal BMD (> 120 mg/cm³), 613 as having low BMD (80-120 mg/cm³), and 179 as having very low BMD (< 80 mg/cm³). Median follow-up was 3.1 years (interquartile range, 2.7-3.4).

Incident fracture occurred in 80 patients (5.4%), of whom 48 were women and 32 were men. Patients who suffered fractures were significantly older than patients with no fractures (mean 59 years vs. 57 years; P = .03). Of the 80 patients with fractures, 31 were osteoporosis related.

In an unadjusted analysis, participants with very low BMD had a greater rate of any fracture (hazard ratio [HR], 2.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-4.7; P = .002) and of osteoporosis-related fracture (HR, 8.1; 95% CI, 2.4-27.0; P = .001). After adjustment for age and sex, their rates remained significantly greater for any fracture (HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-4.2; P = .03) and for osteoporosis-related fracture (HR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.1-15.0; P = .04).

“Opportunistic” use of scans benefits both physicians and patients

“The concept of using a CT scan that was done for a different purpose allows you to be opportunistic,” Ethel S. Siris, MD, the Madeline C. Stabile Professor of Clinical Medicine in the department of medicine at Columbia University and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center of the Columbia University Medical Center, New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, said in an interview. “If you’re dealing with older patients, and if you have the software for your radiologist to use to reanalyze the CT scan and say something about the bone, it’s certainly a way of estimating who may be at risk of future fractures.

“From a practical point of view, it’s hard to imagine that it would ever replace conventional bone mineral density testing via DXA [dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry],” she added. “That said, osteoporosis is woefully underdiagnosed because people don’t get DXA tested. This study showed that, if you have access to the scan of the thoracic or even the lumbar spine and if you have the necessary software, you can make legitimate statements about the numbers being low or very low. What that would lead to, I would hope, is some internists to say, ‘This could be a predictor of fracture risk. We should put you on treatment.’ And then follow up with a conventional DXA test.

“Is that going to happen? I don’t know. But the bottom line of the study is: Anything that may enhance the physician’s drive to evaluate a patient for fracture risk is good.”
 

Whatever the reason for the scan, CT can help diagnose osteoporosis

This study reinforces that CT exams – of the chest, in particular – can serve a valuable dual purpose as osteoporosis screenings, Miriam A. Bredella, MD, professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School and vice chair of the department of radiology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“In the United States, more than 80 million CT examinations are performed each year, many of which could be used to screen for osteoporosis without additional costs or radiation exposure,” she wrote. And thanks to the findings of the study by Therkildsen et al., which relied on both established and new BMD thresholds, the link between thoracic spine BMD and fracture risk is clearer than ever.

“I hope this study will ignite interest in using chest CT examinations performed for other purposes, such as lung cancer screening, for opportunistic osteoporosis screening and prediction of fractures in vulnerable populations,” she added.

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a small number of fracture events overall and the inability to evaluate associations between BMD and fracture rate at specific locations. In addition, their cohort was largely made up of white participants with a certain coronary artery disease risk profile; because of ethnical differences in BMD measurements, their results “cannot be extrapolated to other ethnical groups.”

Several of the study’s authors reported potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and money for consultancies and board memberships from various councils, associations, and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Bredella reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Siris has no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Therkildsen J et al. Radiology. 2020 Jul 14. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020192706.

A new study has determined a benefit of cardiac CT scans beyond assessing heart health: Evaluating fracture rate and potential osteoporosis through the bone mineral density (BMD) of thoracic vertebrae.

“Our results represent a step toward appraisal and recognition of the clinical utility of opportunistic BMD screening from cardiac CT,” wrote Josephine Therkildsen, MD, of Hospital Unit West in Herning, Denmark, and coauthors. The study was published July 14 in Radiology.

To determine if further analysis of cardiac CT could help determine BMD and its association with fracture rate, the investigators launched a prospective observational study of 1,487 Danish patients with potential coronary artery disease who underwent cardiac CT scans between September 2014 and March 2016. Their mean age was 57 years (standard deviation, 9; range, 40-80). Nearly all of the patients were white, and 52.5% (n = 781) were women.

All participants underwent a noncontrast-enhanced cardiac CT, from which volumetric BMD of three thoracic vertebrae was measured via commercially available semiautomatic software. Their mean BMD was 119 mg/cm³ (SD, 34) with no significant difference noted between male and female patients. Of the 1,487 participants, 695 were defined as having normal BMD (> 120 mg/cm³), 613 as having low BMD (80-120 mg/cm³), and 179 as having very low BMD (< 80 mg/cm³). Median follow-up was 3.1 years (interquartile range, 2.7-3.4).

Incident fracture occurred in 80 patients (5.4%), of whom 48 were women and 32 were men. Patients who suffered fractures were significantly older than patients with no fractures (mean 59 years vs. 57 years; P = .03). Of the 80 patients with fractures, 31 were osteoporosis related.

In an unadjusted analysis, participants with very low BMD had a greater rate of any fracture (hazard ratio [HR], 2.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-4.7; P = .002) and of osteoporosis-related fracture (HR, 8.1; 95% CI, 2.4-27.0; P = .001). After adjustment for age and sex, their rates remained significantly greater for any fracture (HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-4.2; P = .03) and for osteoporosis-related fracture (HR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.1-15.0; P = .04).

“Opportunistic” use of scans benefits both physicians and patients

“The concept of using a CT scan that was done for a different purpose allows you to be opportunistic,” Ethel S. Siris, MD, the Madeline C. Stabile Professor of Clinical Medicine in the department of medicine at Columbia University and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center of the Columbia University Medical Center, New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, said in an interview. “If you’re dealing with older patients, and if you have the software for your radiologist to use to reanalyze the CT scan and say something about the bone, it’s certainly a way of estimating who may be at risk of future fractures.

“From a practical point of view, it’s hard to imagine that it would ever replace conventional bone mineral density testing via DXA [dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry],” she added. “That said, osteoporosis is woefully underdiagnosed because people don’t get DXA tested. This study showed that, if you have access to the scan of the thoracic or even the lumbar spine and if you have the necessary software, you can make legitimate statements about the numbers being low or very low. What that would lead to, I would hope, is some internists to say, ‘This could be a predictor of fracture risk. We should put you on treatment.’ And then follow up with a conventional DXA test.

“Is that going to happen? I don’t know. But the bottom line of the study is: Anything that may enhance the physician’s drive to evaluate a patient for fracture risk is good.”
 

Whatever the reason for the scan, CT can help diagnose osteoporosis

This study reinforces that CT exams – of the chest, in particular – can serve a valuable dual purpose as osteoporosis screenings, Miriam A. Bredella, MD, professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School and vice chair of the department of radiology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“In the United States, more than 80 million CT examinations are performed each year, many of which could be used to screen for osteoporosis without additional costs or radiation exposure,” she wrote. And thanks to the findings of the study by Therkildsen et al., which relied on both established and new BMD thresholds, the link between thoracic spine BMD and fracture risk is clearer than ever.

“I hope this study will ignite interest in using chest CT examinations performed for other purposes, such as lung cancer screening, for opportunistic osteoporosis screening and prediction of fractures in vulnerable populations,” she added.

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a small number of fracture events overall and the inability to evaluate associations between BMD and fracture rate at specific locations. In addition, their cohort was largely made up of white participants with a certain coronary artery disease risk profile; because of ethnical differences in BMD measurements, their results “cannot be extrapolated to other ethnical groups.”

Several of the study’s authors reported potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and money for consultancies and board memberships from various councils, associations, and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Bredella reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Siris has no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Therkildsen J et al. Radiology. 2020 Jul 14. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020192706.

The number of Americans aged 60 years and older who report receiving shingles vaccination had risen steadily since 2008 and has leveled off during the past few years, new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Center for Health Statistics reveal.

The proportion of people in this age group who were vaccinated rose from 6.7% in 2008 to 34.5% in 2018, for example.

“The take-home message of our report is that, among adults aged 60 and over, shingles vaccination has increased since 2008. However, disparities in receipt of this vaccination still remain,” Emily Terlizzi, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

The report was published online July 9 in NCHS Data Brief.
 

Similar rates for men and women

Rates of people who reported receiving at least one vaccination with Zostavax (Merck) or Shingrix (GlaxoSmithKline) varied by factors that included Hispanic origin, education, and family income. An unexpected finding was that rates did not vary significantly between men and women.

“One finding that I would say surprised me was that, although the percentage who had ever received a shingles vaccine among women aged 60 and over was higher than that among men in this age group, this difference was not statistically significant,” said Ms. Terlizzi, a health statistician in the Data Analysis and Quality Assurance Branch, Division of Health Interview Statistics, the CDC National Center for Health Statistics. In 2018, for example, 35.4% of women and 33.5% of men reported ever receiving a shingles vaccine.

The similarity of rates was less of a surprise to Len Horovitz, MD, a pulmonary specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, who was not affiliated with the report. “In my anecdotal experience, I don’t see a preponderance of one sex getting shingles more than another. It’s pretty evenly distributed,” he said in an interview.

Ms. Terlizzi and coauthor Lindsey I. Black, MPH, say their findings align with prior research. However, they noted: “Our report uses more recent data from a large, nationally representative data source to update these estimates and describe these disparities.” Data come from results of the annual National Health Interview Survey of households nationwide.
 

Multiple factors explain vaccination differences

Non-Hispanic White adults were more likely to report receiving the vaccine than were Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black survey respondents. Non-Hispanic White adults were about twice as likely to report vaccination – 38.6% – compared with 19.5% of Hispanic adults and 18.8% of non-Hispanic Black adults.

The disparity in vaccination by race was “disappointing news,” Kenneth E. Schmader, MD, said in an interview.

“The health disparity with regard to lower vaccination rates in Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black populations is reported with other vaccines as well and points to the need for better efforts to vaccinate Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black populations,” added Dr. Schmader, a professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

On a positive note, “It was good to see increasing use of shingles vaccination over time, given how devastating zoster can be in older adults and the fact that the vaccines are effective,” said Dr. Schmader, who also serves on the working groups for the Herpes Zoster, Influenza and General Adult Immunization Guidelines for the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Self-reports of receiving vaccination increased in association with higher education and family income levels. For example, 39.9% of respondents who had more than a high school diploma or GED (General Educational Development) reported receiving the shingles vaccine. In contrast, only 21.2% of people with lower educational attainment reported receiving a vaccine.

In terms of income, 20.4% of poor adults reported being vaccinated, compared with 38.4% of adults who were not poor.

The investigators also evaluated the data by geographic region. They found that rates of vaccinations varied from 26.3% in the East South Central part of the United States (which includes Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alabama) to 42.8% in the West North Central region (which includes the Dakotas, Minnesota, and Nebraska).
 

Clinical and research considerations

For most of the decade evaluated in the study, ACIP recommended vaccination against shingles for Americans aged 60 years and older. The current findings, therefore, do not account for ACIP’s expanding its recommendations in 2017 to include adults aged 50 years and older.

Zostavax is expected to be discontinued this year. It was the only shingles vaccine available before the approval of Shingrix in 2018. The shift to a single product could alter vaccination patterns further.

Ms. Terlizzi plans to continue monitoring trends to “see what changes occur in the next few years,” she said.
 

Compliance a concern

Data on vaccination rates for shingles are important given the large proportion of the population at risk, Dr. Horovitz said. “People over age 50 who have had chickenpox have a one third chance over their lifetimes to get shingles. That is a lot of people.”

Multiple factors could be contributing to the fact that vaccination rates have hovered around 34% in recent years, he said. “Whenever you see variations in vaccination rates, you have to think about cultural differences and questions about differences in access, accessibility, and attitudes. Attitudes toward vaccines vary widely – from people who don’t believe in vaccination to people who are eager to take vaccinations.

“I don’t know how to dissect all that out of these data,” he added.

Compliance with recommendations also contributes to vaccination rates, Dr. Horovitz said. The fact that in about 10% of people, a flulike syndrome develops the day after being vaccinated with Shingrix can cause some to postpone or rethink immunization, he added. In addition, Shingrix requires two shots. “People have to come back, and that always sets up an issue with recalling someone.”

Marketplace shortages of the Shingrix vaccine could also contribute to lower vaccination rates. However, Dr. Horovitz said that, in his practice, availability was only a problem during the first year after approval in 2017.

On a related note, manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline announced that a decrease in vaccination demand during the COVID-19 pandemic has allowed the supply to catch up. Shingrix no longer qualifies for the CDC’s shortages list, according to a July 9 report.

Ms. Terlizzi, Dr. Horovitz, and Dr. Schmader have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of Americans aged 60 years and older who report receiving shingles vaccination had risen steadily since 2008 and has leveled off during the past few years, new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Center for Health Statistics reveal.

The proportion of people in this age group who were vaccinated rose from 6.7% in 2008 to 34.5% in 2018, for example.

“The take-home message of our report is that, among adults aged 60 and over, shingles vaccination has increased since 2008. However, disparities in receipt of this vaccination still remain,” Emily Terlizzi, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

The report was published online July 9 in NCHS Data Brief.
 

Similar rates for men and women

Rates of people who reported receiving at least one vaccination with Zostavax (Merck) or Shingrix (GlaxoSmithKline) varied by factors that included Hispanic origin, education, and family income. An unexpected finding was that rates did not vary significantly between men and women.

“One finding that I would say surprised me was that, although the percentage who had ever received a shingles vaccine among women aged 60 and over was higher than that among men in this age group, this difference was not statistically significant,” said Ms. Terlizzi, a health statistician in the Data Analysis and Quality Assurance Branch, Division of Health Interview Statistics, the CDC National Center for Health Statistics. In 2018, for example, 35.4% of women and 33.5% of men reported ever receiving a shingles vaccine.

The similarity of rates was less of a surprise to Len Horovitz, MD, a pulmonary specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, who was not affiliated with the report. “In my anecdotal experience, I don’t see a preponderance of one sex getting shingles more than another. It’s pretty evenly distributed,” he said in an interview.

Ms. Terlizzi and coauthor Lindsey I. Black, MPH, say their findings align with prior research. However, they noted: “Our report uses more recent data from a large, nationally representative data source to update these estimates and describe these disparities.” Data come from results of the annual National Health Interview Survey of households nationwide.
 

Multiple factors explain vaccination differences

Non-Hispanic White adults were more likely to report receiving the vaccine than were Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black survey respondents. Non-Hispanic White adults were about twice as likely to report vaccination – 38.6% – compared with 19.5% of Hispanic adults and 18.8% of non-Hispanic Black adults.

The disparity in vaccination by race was “disappointing news,” Kenneth E. Schmader, MD, said in an interview.

“The health disparity with regard to lower vaccination rates in Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black populations is reported with other vaccines as well and points to the need for better efforts to vaccinate Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black populations,” added Dr. Schmader, a professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

On a positive note, “It was good to see increasing use of shingles vaccination over time, given how devastating zoster can be in older adults and the fact that the vaccines are effective,” said Dr. Schmader, who also serves on the working groups for the Herpes Zoster, Influenza and General Adult Immunization Guidelines for the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Self-reports of receiving vaccination increased in association with higher education and family income levels. For example, 39.9% of respondents who had more than a high school diploma or GED (General Educational Development) reported receiving the shingles vaccine. In contrast, only 21.2% of people with lower educational attainment reported receiving a vaccine.

In terms of income, 20.4% of poor adults reported being vaccinated, compared with 38.4% of adults who were not poor.

The investigators also evaluated the data by geographic region. They found that rates of vaccinations varied from 26.3% in the East South Central part of the United States (which includes Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alabama) to 42.8% in the West North Central region (which includes the Dakotas, Minnesota, and Nebraska).
 

Clinical and research considerations

For most of the decade evaluated in the study, ACIP recommended vaccination against shingles for Americans aged 60 years and older. The current findings, therefore, do not account for ACIP’s expanding its recommendations in 2017 to include adults aged 50 years and older.

Zostavax is expected to be discontinued this year. It was the only shingles vaccine available before the approval of Shingrix in 2018. The shift to a single product could alter vaccination patterns further.

Ms. Terlizzi plans to continue monitoring trends to “see what changes occur in the next few years,” she said.
 

Compliance a concern

Data on vaccination rates for shingles are important given the large proportion of the population at risk, Dr. Horovitz said. “People over age 50 who have had chickenpox have a one third chance over their lifetimes to get shingles. That is a lot of people.”

Multiple factors could be contributing to the fact that vaccination rates have hovered around 34% in recent years, he said. “Whenever you see variations in vaccination rates, you have to think about cultural differences and questions about differences in access, accessibility, and attitudes. Attitudes toward vaccines vary widely – from people who don’t believe in vaccination to people who are eager to take vaccinations.

“I don’t know how to dissect all that out of these data,” he added.

Compliance with recommendations also contributes to vaccination rates, Dr. Horovitz said. The fact that in about 10% of people, a flulike syndrome develops the day after being vaccinated with Shingrix can cause some to postpone or rethink immunization, he added. In addition, Shingrix requires two shots. “People have to come back, and that always sets up an issue with recalling someone.”

Marketplace shortages of the Shingrix vaccine could also contribute to lower vaccination rates. However, Dr. Horovitz said that, in his practice, availability was only a problem during the first year after approval in 2017.

On a related note, manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline announced that a decrease in vaccination demand during the COVID-19 pandemic has allowed the supply to catch up. Shingrix no longer qualifies for the CDC’s shortages list, according to a July 9 report.

Ms. Terlizzi, Dr. Horovitz, and Dr. Schmader have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of Americans aged 60 years and older who report receiving shingles vaccination had risen steadily since 2008 and has leveled off during the past few years, new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Center for Health Statistics reveal.

The proportion of people in this age group who were vaccinated rose from 6.7% in 2008 to 34.5% in 2018, for example.

“The take-home message of our report is that, among adults aged 60 and over, shingles vaccination has increased since 2008. However, disparities in receipt of this vaccination still remain,” Emily Terlizzi, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

The report was published online July 9 in NCHS Data Brief.
 

Similar rates for men and women

Rates of people who reported receiving at least one vaccination with Zostavax (Merck) or Shingrix (GlaxoSmithKline) varied by factors that included Hispanic origin, education, and family income. An unexpected finding was that rates did not vary significantly between men and women.

“One finding that I would say surprised me was that, although the percentage who had ever received a shingles vaccine among women aged 60 and over was higher than that among men in this age group, this difference was not statistically significant,” said Ms. Terlizzi, a health statistician in the Data Analysis and Quality Assurance Branch, Division of Health Interview Statistics, the CDC National Center for Health Statistics. In 2018, for example, 35.4% of women and 33.5% of men reported ever receiving a shingles vaccine.

The similarity of rates was less of a surprise to Len Horovitz, MD, a pulmonary specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, who was not affiliated with the report. “In my anecdotal experience, I don’t see a preponderance of one sex getting shingles more than another. It’s pretty evenly distributed,” he said in an interview.

Ms. Terlizzi and coauthor Lindsey I. Black, MPH, say their findings align with prior research. However, they noted: “Our report uses more recent data from a large, nationally representative data source to update these estimates and describe these disparities.” Data come from results of the annual National Health Interview Survey of households nationwide.
 

Multiple factors explain vaccination differences

Non-Hispanic White adults were more likely to report receiving the vaccine than were Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black survey respondents. Non-Hispanic White adults were about twice as likely to report vaccination – 38.6% – compared with 19.5% of Hispanic adults and 18.8% of non-Hispanic Black adults.

The disparity in vaccination by race was “disappointing news,” Kenneth E. Schmader, MD, said in an interview.

“The health disparity with regard to lower vaccination rates in Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black populations is reported with other vaccines as well and points to the need for better efforts to vaccinate Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black populations,” added Dr. Schmader, a professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

On a positive note, “It was good to see increasing use of shingles vaccination over time, given how devastating zoster can be in older adults and the fact that the vaccines are effective,” said Dr. Schmader, who also serves on the working groups for the Herpes Zoster, Influenza and General Adult Immunization Guidelines for the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Self-reports of receiving vaccination increased in association with higher education and family income levels. For example, 39.9% of respondents who had more than a high school diploma or GED (General Educational Development) reported receiving the shingles vaccine. In contrast, only 21.2% of people with lower educational attainment reported receiving a vaccine.

In terms of income, 20.4% of poor adults reported being vaccinated, compared with 38.4% of adults who were not poor.

The investigators also evaluated the data by geographic region. They found that rates of vaccinations varied from 26.3% in the East South Central part of the United States (which includes Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alabama) to 42.8% in the West North Central region (which includes the Dakotas, Minnesota, and Nebraska).
 

Clinical and research considerations

For most of the decade evaluated in the study, ACIP recommended vaccination against shingles for Americans aged 60 years and older. The current findings, therefore, do not account for ACIP’s expanding its recommendations in 2017 to include adults aged 50 years and older.

Zostavax is expected to be discontinued this year. It was the only shingles vaccine available before the approval of Shingrix in 2018. The shift to a single product could alter vaccination patterns further.

Ms. Terlizzi plans to continue monitoring trends to “see what changes occur in the next few years,” she said.
 

Compliance a concern

Data on vaccination rates for shingles are important given the large proportion of the population at risk, Dr. Horovitz said. “People over age 50 who have had chickenpox have a one third chance over their lifetimes to get shingles. That is a lot of people.”

Multiple factors could be contributing to the fact that vaccination rates have hovered around 34% in recent years, he said. “Whenever you see variations in vaccination rates, you have to think about cultural differences and questions about differences in access, accessibility, and attitudes. Attitudes toward vaccines vary widely – from people who don’t believe in vaccination to people who are eager to take vaccinations.

“I don’t know how to dissect all that out of these data,” he added.

Compliance with recommendations also contributes to vaccination rates, Dr. Horovitz said. The fact that in about 10% of people, a flulike syndrome develops the day after being vaccinated with Shingrix can cause some to postpone or rethink immunization, he added. In addition, Shingrix requires two shots. “People have to come back, and that always sets up an issue with recalling someone.”

Marketplace shortages of the Shingrix vaccine could also contribute to lower vaccination rates. However, Dr. Horovitz said that, in his practice, availability was only a problem during the first year after approval in 2017.

On a related note, manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline announced that a decrease in vaccination demand during the COVID-19 pandemic has allowed the supply to catch up. Shingrix no longer qualifies for the CDC’s shortages list, according to a July 9 report.

Ms. Terlizzi, Dr. Horovitz, and Dr. Schmader have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system 75 years or older, free of cardiovascular (CV) disease and prescribed statins for the first time, had a one-fourth lower risk for death and a 20% lower risk for CV death over an average 7 years than that of comparable patients not prescribed the drugs in an observational study.

The findings, based on more than 320,000 predominantly white male patients, initially without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), underscore the notion that “age on its own shouldn’t be a criterion not to use these drugs,” Ariela R. Orkaby, MD, MPH, lead author on the study, published in the July 7 issue of JAMA, said in an interview.

The very elderly are frequently undertreated, particularly in primary prevention, as many physicians consider it unnecessary for them to initiate or continue preventive measures, said Dr. Orkaby, of VA Boston Healthcare System and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“From available data, we don’t really expect statins to start providing benefit in primary prevention until they’ve been taken for about 2 to 5 years. So for people who have very limited life expectancy, it may not be a great idea to add to their pill burden or increase the possibility that they might decline functionally,” Dr. Orkaby said.

“But what we saw in this study is that there is benefit to prescribing statins even in elderly patients, even within 2 years” of follow-up.

Despite being among the most studied drugs in the world, statins are understudied in older people. Fewer than 2% of the 186,854 participants in 28 statin trials were aged 75 years or older, wrote Dr. Orkaby and associates.

Most of what is known about initiating statin therapy in the 75-and-older age group comes from underpowered subgroup analyses and a few observational studies, Steven J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, Monash University, Melbourne, and Adam J. Nelson, MBBS, PhD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., wrote in an accompanying editorial. As a result, the evidence is conflicting, with some reports suggesting marked benefit and others possible harm.

The current findings, they wrote, “provide additional support for treatment guidelines that have increasingly advocated for more widespread use of statin therapy for ASCVD prevention in older individuals.”

Of the 326,981 people in the analysis, 57,178 (17.5%) were new statin users or initiated a statin during the study period, usually simvastatin. Their mean age was about 81 years, and 97.3% of the patients were men, 90% were white, and 72% were former smokers.

Using propensity scoring, the authors compared statin users with the other remaining patients who had the same likelihood of being prescribed a statin based on clinical characteristics but did not receive a prescription for a statin.

Michael W. Rich, MD, Washington University, St. Louis, who was not involved in the study but has previously worked with Dr. Orkaby, praised the analysis.

“It’s one of the best studies I’ve seen addressing this particular issue. It’s a large sample size, the analysis was very well done, and I think that it comes to a pretty unequivocal conclusion that, at least in this population, those individuals who were started on statins for the first time, and having no known prior ASCVD, clearly had a lower all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, as well as a lower risk of composite cardiovascular events,” he said in an interview.

But the data have limitations, he added. The findings are still observational and could be confounded by unknown variables, and the select population – mostly white, male veterans – is known to be at somewhat higher risk for events than the general population.

Perhaps even more impressive than the risk reductions seen at a mean 6.8 years of follow-up, Dr. Rich said, are the sensitivity analyses at 2, 4, and 6 years that showed the benefit manifesting early.

The researchers saw a 32% reduction in all-cause mortality risk (P < .05) at 2 years, 21% at 4 years, and 13% at 6 years (P < .05 for all). Risk reductions for CV death followed a similar pattern, they wrote.

Dr. Rich said that the trial, although not a “slam dunk,” has persuaded him to shift from being very conservative about prescribing statins to elderly patients to being much more willing to consider it.

“This doesn’t mean that I will be running to routinely prescribe my 90-plus patients a statin, nor should we should be starting statins in everyone over 75, not even in all male former smokers over 75 – the type of people in this study – but I do think that it provides a stronger basis for talking to these patients about the possibility of starting a statin.”

There are two ongoing trials that may provide greater clarity, the authors observed. The STAREE trial has enrolled adults 70 years and older in Australia and includes serial evaluation of cognitive scores. Also, PREVENTABLE will examine the role of statins for prevention of dementia and disability-free survival in adults 75 years and older.

However, neither trial may fully resolve the question of primary prevention statin use in the elderly, they wrote. “While these trials are necessary to broaden the evidence base for older adults, it is unlikely that any trial will enroll large numbers of individuals at very advanced ages, black individuals, and those with dementia, as were included in this study.”

Dr. Orkaby had no disclosures; potential conflicts for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Rich reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Nicholls disclosed receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Anthera, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Cerenis, The Medicines Company, Resverlogix, InfraReDx, Roche, Sanofi-Regeneron, and LipoScience; and receiving consulting fees or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Anthera, Omthera, Merck, Takeda, Resverlogix, Sanofi-Regeneron, CSL Behring, Esperion, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Nelson had no disclosures.

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

Patients in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system 75 years or older, free of cardiovascular (CV) disease and prescribed statins for the first time, had a one-fourth lower risk for death and a 20% lower risk for CV death over an average 7 years than that of comparable patients not prescribed the drugs in an observational study.

The findings, based on more than 320,000 predominantly white male patients, initially without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), underscore the notion that “age on its own shouldn’t be a criterion not to use these drugs,” Ariela R. Orkaby, MD, MPH, lead author on the study, published in the July 7 issue of JAMA, said in an interview.

The very elderly are frequently undertreated, particularly in primary prevention, as many physicians consider it unnecessary for them to initiate or continue preventive measures, said Dr. Orkaby, of VA Boston Healthcare System and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“From available data, we don’t really expect statins to start providing benefit in primary prevention until they’ve been taken for about 2 to 5 years. So for people who have very limited life expectancy, it may not be a great idea to add to their pill burden or increase the possibility that they might decline functionally,” Dr. Orkaby said.

“But what we saw in this study is that there is benefit to prescribing statins even in elderly patients, even within 2 years” of follow-up.

Despite being among the most studied drugs in the world, statins are understudied in older people. Fewer than 2% of the 186,854 participants in 28 statin trials were aged 75 years or older, wrote Dr. Orkaby and associates.

Most of what is known about initiating statin therapy in the 75-and-older age group comes from underpowered subgroup analyses and a few observational studies, Steven J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, Monash University, Melbourne, and Adam J. Nelson, MBBS, PhD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., wrote in an accompanying editorial. As a result, the evidence is conflicting, with some reports suggesting marked benefit and others possible harm.

The current findings, they wrote, “provide additional support for treatment guidelines that have increasingly advocated for more widespread use of statin therapy for ASCVD prevention in older individuals.”

Of the 326,981 people in the analysis, 57,178 (17.5%) were new statin users or initiated a statin during the study period, usually simvastatin. Their mean age was about 81 years, and 97.3% of the patients were men, 90% were white, and 72% were former smokers.

Using propensity scoring, the authors compared statin users with the other remaining patients who had the same likelihood of being prescribed a statin based on clinical characteristics but did not receive a prescription for a statin.

Michael W. Rich, MD, Washington University, St. Louis, who was not involved in the study but has previously worked with Dr. Orkaby, praised the analysis.

“It’s one of the best studies I’ve seen addressing this particular issue. It’s a large sample size, the analysis was very well done, and I think that it comes to a pretty unequivocal conclusion that, at least in this population, those individuals who were started on statins for the first time, and having no known prior ASCVD, clearly had a lower all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, as well as a lower risk of composite cardiovascular events,” he said in an interview.

But the data have limitations, he added. The findings are still observational and could be confounded by unknown variables, and the select population – mostly white, male veterans – is known to be at somewhat higher risk for events than the general population.

Perhaps even more impressive than the risk reductions seen at a mean 6.8 years of follow-up, Dr. Rich said, are the sensitivity analyses at 2, 4, and 6 years that showed the benefit manifesting early.

The researchers saw a 32% reduction in all-cause mortality risk (P < .05) at 2 years, 21% at 4 years, and 13% at 6 years (P < .05 for all). Risk reductions for CV death followed a similar pattern, they wrote.

Dr. Rich said that the trial, although not a “slam dunk,” has persuaded him to shift from being very conservative about prescribing statins to elderly patients to being much more willing to consider it.

“This doesn’t mean that I will be running to routinely prescribe my 90-plus patients a statin, nor should we should be starting statins in everyone over 75, not even in all male former smokers over 75 – the type of people in this study – but I do think that it provides a stronger basis for talking to these patients about the possibility of starting a statin.”

There are two ongoing trials that may provide greater clarity, the authors observed. The STAREE trial has enrolled adults 70 years and older in Australia and includes serial evaluation of cognitive scores. Also, PREVENTABLE will examine the role of statins for prevention of dementia and disability-free survival in adults 75 years and older.

However, neither trial may fully resolve the question of primary prevention statin use in the elderly, they wrote. “While these trials are necessary to broaden the evidence base for older adults, it is unlikely that any trial will enroll large numbers of individuals at very advanced ages, black individuals, and those with dementia, as were included in this study.”

Dr. Orkaby had no disclosures; potential conflicts for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Rich reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Nicholls disclosed receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Anthera, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Cerenis, The Medicines Company, Resverlogix, InfraReDx, Roche, Sanofi-Regeneron, and LipoScience; and receiving consulting fees or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Anthera, Omthera, Merck, Takeda, Resverlogix, Sanofi-Regeneron, CSL Behring, Esperion, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Nelson had no disclosures.

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

Patients in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system 75 years or older, free of cardiovascular (CV) disease and prescribed statins for the first time, had a one-fourth lower risk for death and a 20% lower risk for CV death over an average 7 years than that of comparable patients not prescribed the drugs in an observational study.

The findings, based on more than 320,000 predominantly white male patients, initially without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), underscore the notion that “age on its own shouldn’t be a criterion not to use these drugs,” Ariela R. Orkaby, MD, MPH, lead author on the study, published in the July 7 issue of JAMA, said in an interview.

The very elderly are frequently undertreated, particularly in primary prevention, as many physicians consider it unnecessary for them to initiate or continue preventive measures, said Dr. Orkaby, of VA Boston Healthcare System and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“From available data, we don’t really expect statins to start providing benefit in primary prevention until they’ve been taken for about 2 to 5 years. So for people who have very limited life expectancy, it may not be a great idea to add to their pill burden or increase the possibility that they might decline functionally,” Dr. Orkaby said.

“But what we saw in this study is that there is benefit to prescribing statins even in elderly patients, even within 2 years” of follow-up.

Despite being among the most studied drugs in the world, statins are understudied in older people. Fewer than 2% of the 186,854 participants in 28 statin trials were aged 75 years or older, wrote Dr. Orkaby and associates.

Most of what is known about initiating statin therapy in the 75-and-older age group comes from underpowered subgroup analyses and a few observational studies, Steven J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, Monash University, Melbourne, and Adam J. Nelson, MBBS, PhD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., wrote in an accompanying editorial. As a result, the evidence is conflicting, with some reports suggesting marked benefit and others possible harm.

The current findings, they wrote, “provide additional support for treatment guidelines that have increasingly advocated for more widespread use of statin therapy for ASCVD prevention in older individuals.”

Of the 326,981 people in the analysis, 57,178 (17.5%) were new statin users or initiated a statin during the study period, usually simvastatin. Their mean age was about 81 years, and 97.3% of the patients were men, 90% were white, and 72% were former smokers.

Using propensity scoring, the authors compared statin users with the other remaining patients who had the same likelihood of being prescribed a statin based on clinical characteristics but did not receive a prescription for a statin.

Michael W. Rich, MD, Washington University, St. Louis, who was not involved in the study but has previously worked with Dr. Orkaby, praised the analysis.

“It’s one of the best studies I’ve seen addressing this particular issue. It’s a large sample size, the analysis was very well done, and I think that it comes to a pretty unequivocal conclusion that, at least in this population, those individuals who were started on statins for the first time, and having no known prior ASCVD, clearly had a lower all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, as well as a lower risk of composite cardiovascular events,” he said in an interview.

But the data have limitations, he added. The findings are still observational and could be confounded by unknown variables, and the select population – mostly white, male veterans – is known to be at somewhat higher risk for events than the general population.

Perhaps even more impressive than the risk reductions seen at a mean 6.8 years of follow-up, Dr. Rich said, are the sensitivity analyses at 2, 4, and 6 years that showed the benefit manifesting early.

The researchers saw a 32% reduction in all-cause mortality risk (P < .05) at 2 years, 21% at 4 years, and 13% at 6 years (P < .05 for all). Risk reductions for CV death followed a similar pattern, they wrote.

Dr. Rich said that the trial, although not a “slam dunk,” has persuaded him to shift from being very conservative about prescribing statins to elderly patients to being much more willing to consider it.

“This doesn’t mean that I will be running to routinely prescribe my 90-plus patients a statin, nor should we should be starting statins in everyone over 75, not even in all male former smokers over 75 – the type of people in this study – but I do think that it provides a stronger basis for talking to these patients about the possibility of starting a statin.”

There are two ongoing trials that may provide greater clarity, the authors observed. The STAREE trial has enrolled adults 70 years and older in Australia and includes serial evaluation of cognitive scores. Also, PREVENTABLE will examine the role of statins for prevention of dementia and disability-free survival in adults 75 years and older.

However, neither trial may fully resolve the question of primary prevention statin use in the elderly, they wrote. “While these trials are necessary to broaden the evidence base for older adults, it is unlikely that any trial will enroll large numbers of individuals at very advanced ages, black individuals, and those with dementia, as were included in this study.”

Dr. Orkaby had no disclosures; potential conflicts for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Rich reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Nicholls disclosed receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Anthera, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Cerenis, The Medicines Company, Resverlogix, InfraReDx, Roche, Sanofi-Regeneron, and LipoScience; and receiving consulting fees or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Anthera, Omthera, Merck, Takeda, Resverlogix, Sanofi-Regeneron, CSL Behring, Esperion, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Nelson had no disclosures.

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

With a rapidly growing older adult population, increased attention has been given to cognitive changes that occur with age, with a focus on optimizing the cognitive health of aging individuals.¹ Given the absence of pharmaceutical treatments to prevent cognitive decline, there is an increased need for health care systems to offer alternative or behavioral interventions that can mitigate the effects of cognitive decline in aging.

Notably, many individuals are able to maintain or even improve cognitive functioning throughout their lifespan, with some research implicating health behaviors as an important factor for promoting brain health with age. Specifically, sleep, exercise, eating habits, social engagement, and cognitive stimulation have been linked to improved cognitive functioning.^2-8 In addition to the potential benefits for brain health, there is evidence that greater investment in attaining health goals is associated with subjective reports of higher well-being, fewer mental health symptoms, lower physical health stresses, decreased caregiver burden, and increased functional independence linked with longer independent living.⁹ The latter has a substantial financial impact, such that the positive consequence of increased independence is likely staving off the need for admission to assisted living and adult family homes, which can be costly.

Despite the role of health behaviors in brain aging and overall health and functioning, research indicates that only a small number of older adults (12.8%) follow recommended guidelines for healthy lifestyle factors.¹⁰ Education has been identified as one factor associated with the likelihood of engaging in positive health behaviors, prompting the delivery of health-education interventions. Most psychoeducational interventions have traditionally focused on one aspect of behavior change at a time (eg, sleep); however, Gross and colleaguesconducted a meta-analysis of cognitive interventions and in addition to the overall positive benefits (effect size 0.38), they also found suggestive evidence that interventions that combined multiple training strategies were associated with larger training gains (P = .04) after adjusting for multiple comparisons.¹¹ For example, Miller and colleagues found a significant improvement on both subjective and objective measures of memory following a multicomponent approach that combined training in memory skills, stress reduction, nutrition, and physical activity.¹²

In addition to the potential positive impacts of health behaviors on brain health, findings suggest that targeted emphasis on health behavior change may have the potential to stave off mild cognitiveimpairment (MCI) or dementia even if for a short time. Given the increasing prevalence rates of MCI with age (6.7% in adults aged 60-64 years, reaching 25.2% in adults aged 80-84 years¹³) and dementia (prevalence of MCI converting to dementia is 18-40%¹⁴), as well as the corresponding emotional, financial, and family-oriented consequences (eg, impact on the well-being of family caregivers), the need for behavioral interventions that seek to optimize brain health is becoming increasingly apparent.

More than 9 million veterans are now aged ≥ 65 years.¹⁵ In addition to representing nearly half of all veterans and a sizable portion of aging adults in the US, older veterans are at increased risk of frailty, mortality, and high rates of chronic medical/mental health conditions that can lead to accelerated cognitive aging.^6-17 Together, these conditions highlight the importance of developing comprehensive psychoeducational and behavioral interventions in this population. To address this need, we developed a novel psychoeducation and behavior change group called the Healthy Aging Project-Brain (HAP-B, pronounced “happy”). The HAP-B intervention was designed to promote healthy brain aging by using empirically supported health behavior change strategies, including education, personalized goal setting, and community support. The primary aim of this project was to develop and implement an intervention that was feasible and acceptable (eg, could be implemented in our setting, was appropriate for a veteran population) and to determine any positive outcomes/preliminary effects on overall health and well-being.

Methods

We recruited veterans aged ≥ 50 years through primary care clinics and self-referrals via flyers in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System (VAPSHCS), Seattle Division hospital. We targeted the “worried well” and welcomed veterans with MCI and mental health diagnoses. Notably, if there were significant mental health and/or substance use concerns, we encouraged veterans to seek focused care and stabilization prior to or concurrent with group participation. Exclusion criteria included presence of suicidality/homicidality, untreated or unstable substance use disorder, or a diagnosis of dementia. Exclusion criteria were assessed by the referring health care providers (HCPs), when appropriate, and through a health record review. Group facilitators used their clinical judgment to monitor participants if they began experiencing more severe cognitive impairment or acute mental health concerns. Although we did not encounter any of these instances, facilitators were prepared to discuss any concerns with the veteran and their referring HCP. Participants sampled were from 1 of 5 groups offered between January 2018 and March 2019. A waiver from the institutional review board was obtained after meeting criteria for quality improvement/quality assurance (QI/QA) for this study.

Procedures

At the initial stages of development, our team conducted a needs assessment to identify health-related areas where HCPs felt veterans would benefit from additional education and support. The needs assessment was conducted across primary care, geriatric extended care, and the Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center (GRECC) at VAPSHCS. Combining the needs assessment results with the available research base, we identified sleep, physical activity, social engagement, and cognitive stimulation as areas for focus. Notably, although nutrition has been identified as an important factor in cognitive aging, a diet and nutrition class was already available to older veterans at the Seattle VA; hence, we chose to limit overlap by not covering this topic in our group.

The group was offered on a quarterly basis as six 90-minute psychoeducational classes to allow time for didactics, discussion, and practice without overloading participants with information. Each group consisted of 4 to 9 veterans led by 2 cofacilitators. Group structure allowed for feedback and ideas from group members as well as accountability for engaging in behavior change. Cognitive functioning was not formally evaluated. Attendees were asked but not required to complete questionnaires before the classes began and again at completion. In addition at the completion of each group, feedback was collected from veterans and used to modify group content (Figure).

Two pilot groups were implemented in early and mid-2018 with iterative changes after each group. Then we revised the assessment battery and implemented the current version (v1.0), which was first offered in the fall of 2018 and was used with the final 3 groups. Noteworthy changes included weekly check-ins to assess use of health behavior logs and progress toward individual goals, additional pre-and postgroup measures, and in vivo skills practice relevant to the topic being discussed that day.

Each session began with a check-in, which included a review of daily logs and SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant/realistic, and timebound) goals from the previous week.¹⁸ This allowed for praise/reinforcement of health behaviors as well as discussion of potential barriers. Second, an overview of research focusing on the relationship between aging, brain health, and the topic of the day was presented. As an example, in the discussion of social engagement, research was presented about the link between social isolation and cognitive decline; the indirect benefits of social support (eg, social support is linked to improved physical and mental health, which, in turn, is associated with less cognitive decline); and the direct benefits of social support (eg, high levels of emotional support are associated with better cognitive function) (Table 1).⁶

Next, facilitators reviewed skills and strategies to improve functioning in the topic of discussion. During the social engagement group, for example, facilitators discussed tips to improve social skills (eg, asking open-ended questions) and how to build social support into a daily routine (eg, scheduling weekly phone calls with family and friends). Following this discussion of skills, an activity was practiced, reinforcing learned material. During the social engagement group, veterans were invited to use small talk strategies with fellow group members. Finally, group sessions ended with each participant identifying a SMART goal for the coming week and troubleshooting potential barriers to success. SMART goals were kept broad, so veterans could choose a goal related to the topic discussed at the group that day (eg, scheduling a phone call with a friend twice in the coming week during the social engagement-focused group) or choose any other goal to focus on (eg, a sleep-related goal). Similarly, goals could change week to week, or could remain the same throughout the 6-week classes.

Measures

The questionnaires used for QI/QA analyses included the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS); Geriatric Depression Scale-Short Form (GDS-S); Social Support Survey Instrument (SSSI); Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI); Medical Outcomes Survey-Short Form (MOS-36 SF); and a self-efficacy scale (adapted from Huckans and colleagues for traumatic brain injury).^19-24 Written feedback was collected at the end of the last group to assess perception of progress, self-perceived behavior change, what was helpful or unhelpful, and how likely the participants were to recommend the group to other veterans (0 to 3, very unlikely to very likely).

To promote consistency with other health and behavior change interventions at the VA, HAP-B used resources from the Whole Health model SMART goals. Research supports the use of self-monitoring techniques like SMART goals for behavior change.²⁵

To facilitate skills practice and self-monitoring between classes, veterans were asked to complete 2 homework assignments. First, at the end of each group, each veteran identified a specific SMART goal to focus on and track in the coming week. Goals were unique to each veteran and allowed to change from week to week. Group discussion around SMART goals involved plans for how to address potential barriers; progress toward goals was discussed at the beginning of the following group. Second, veterans were asked to complete a worksheet used to track progress toward the weekly SMART goal and the specific health behaviors related to the 4 domains targeted by HAP-B. For example, when tracking sleep behaviors, veterans noted bedtime, waketime, number of times they woke up during the night, and length of daytime naps if applicable. Tracking logs were provided at the end of each class for personal purposes only. We asked veterans to rate themselves each week on whether they used the tracking sheet to monitor health behaviors; and how successful they were at accomplishing their previously identified SMART goal. We recorded responses on a 0 to 2 scale (0, not good; 1, fair; 2, good). This rating system was developed and implemented in later groups to promote self-monitoring, accountability, and discussion of potential barriers. However, due to the small sample that completed these ratings and the absence of objective corroborating data, these ratings were not included in the current analyses.

Every participant received a manual in binder format, which provided the didactic information for each group session, skills and strategies discussed in each session, and relevant resources in both the VA and community. For example, social engagement resources included information about volunteer opportunities, VA groups that focus on developing interpersonal skills, and recommendations from past group members on social events (eg, dance lessons at a senior center). We also developed a facilitator version of the manual in which we added comments and guidance on topics for discussion. Materials were developed with the goal of optimizing the ease of dissemination to other sites.

Results

Across the 5 groups, 31 veterans enrolled as participants and completed the initial intake measures, with an average of 6 participants per group (range 4-9). The majority (80%) attended at least 5 of the 6 classes. The mean age was 70.7 years, and 90% of participants were men. Seventy percent of participants self-identified as white, 32% African American, and 3% Native American, which is consistent with VAPSHCS demographics. Of the 31 participants, 16 had a mental health diagnosis, and 6 had a cognitive diagnosis.

At the start of the class, the mean (SD) reports of participants were mild depressive symptoms 5.96 (3.8) on the GDS scale, moderate levels of self-efficacy 3.69 (0.5) on the self-efficacy scale, and moderate levels of satisfaction with life 18.08 (6.8) on the SWLS scale (Table 2). Data from 25 of 31 veterans who completed both pregroup and postgroup surveys were analyzed and paired samples t tests without corrections indicated a reduction in depressive symptoms (P = .01), improved self-efficacy (P = .08), and improved satisfaction with life (P = .03). There were no significant differences in self-reported sleep quality or perceived social support from pregroup to postgroup evaluations. Because the sample size was smaller for the MOS-36, which was not used until group 3, and the subscales are composed of few items each, we conducted exploratory analyses of the 8 MOS-36 subscales and found that well-being, physical functioning, role limitations due to physical and emotional functioning, and energy/fatigue significantly improved over time (Ps < .04).

Discussion

The ability and need to promote brain health with age is an emerging priority as our aging population grows. A growing body of evidence supports the role of health behaviors in healthy brain aging. Education and skills training in a group setting provides a supportive, cost-effective approach for increasing overall health in aging adults. Yet older adults are statistically less likely to engage in these behaviors on a regular basis. The current investigation provides preliminary support for a model of care that uses a comprehensive, experiential psychoeducational approach to facilitate behavior change in older adults. Our aim was to develop and implement an intervention that was feasible and acceptable to our older veterans and to determine any positive outcomes/preliminary effects on overall health and well-being.

Participants indicated that they enjoyed the group, learned new skills (per participant feedback and facilitator observation), and experienced improvements in mood, self-efficacy, and life satisfaction. Given the participants’ positive response to the group and its content, as well as continued referrals by HCPs to this group and low difficulty with ongoing recruitment, this program was deemed both feasible and acceptable in our veteran health care setting. Questions remain about the extent to which participants modified their health behaviors given that we did not collect objective measurements of behaviors (eg, time spent exercising), the duration of behavior change (ie, how long during and after the group were behaviors maintained), and the role of premorbid or concurrent characteristics that may moderate the effect of the intervention on health-related outcomes (eg, sleep quality, perceived social support, overall functioning, concurrent interventions, medications).

Strengths and Limitations

This study had a limited sample size and no control group. However, evidence of significant improvements in depressive symptoms, self-efficacy, and life satisfaction in the development groups without a control group is encouraging. This is particularly noteworthy given that older veterans as a group have higher rates of frailty and mortality than do other similarly aged counterparts.¹⁷An additional weakness is the absence of a brief cognitive assessment or other formal assessment as part of the inclusion/exclusion criteria. However, this program development project provides data from a realistic condition (recruited broadly and with few exclusions, offered in similar format as other VA classes), thus adding strength to the interpretation and possibly the generalizability of these findings.

Conclusions

Future directions include disseminating HAP-B materials and procedures across a variety of sites, both VA and non-VA. In line with this goal, we hope to increase sample size and sample diversity while optimizing protocol integrity during the exportation phase. With a greater sample size and power, we aim to examine the role of self-efficacy and other premorbid factors (eg, cognitive functioning at baseline) as mediators for observed changes in pre-/postmeasures and outcomes. We also hope to incorporate objective measures of behavior change, such as fitness trackers, heart rate/pulse monitors, and actigraphy for monitoring sleep. Finally, we are interested in conducting follow-up with past and future participants to detect changes that may occur with learning new skills following the completion of the group (eg, changes in sleep behavior that take time to take effect) and the extent to which participants continue to use the health behavior skills and strategies to maintain or enhance progress in behavioral goals. Finally, although this intervention was initially designed for use with older veterans receiving health care through the VA, we believe the concepts and work products described here can be used with older adults across a wide range of health care settings. Providers interested in trialing HAP-B at their local site are encouraged to contact the authors.

With a rapidly growing older adult population, increased attention has been given to cognitive changes that occur with age, with a focus on optimizing the cognitive health of aging individuals.¹ Given the absence of pharmaceutical treatments to prevent cognitive decline, there is an increased need for health care systems to offer alternative or behavioral interventions that can mitigate the effects of cognitive decline in aging.

Notably, many individuals are able to maintain or even improve cognitive functioning throughout their lifespan, with some research implicating health behaviors as an important factor for promoting brain health with age. Specifically, sleep, exercise, eating habits, social engagement, and cognitive stimulation have been linked to improved cognitive functioning.^2-8 In addition to the potential benefits for brain health, there is evidence that greater investment in attaining health goals is associated with subjective reports of higher well-being, fewer mental health symptoms, lower physical health stresses, decreased caregiver burden, and increased functional independence linked with longer independent living.⁹ The latter has a substantial financial impact, such that the positive consequence of increased independence is likely staving off the need for admission to assisted living and adult family homes, which can be costly.

Despite the role of health behaviors in brain aging and overall health and functioning, research indicates that only a small number of older adults (12.8%) follow recommended guidelines for healthy lifestyle factors.¹⁰ Education has been identified as one factor associated with the likelihood of engaging in positive health behaviors, prompting the delivery of health-education interventions. Most psychoeducational interventions have traditionally focused on one aspect of behavior change at a time (eg, sleep); however, Gross and colleaguesconducted a meta-analysis of cognitive interventions and in addition to the overall positive benefits (effect size 0.38), they also found suggestive evidence that interventions that combined multiple training strategies were associated with larger training gains (P = .04) after adjusting for multiple comparisons.¹¹ For example, Miller and colleagues found a significant improvement on both subjective and objective measures of memory following a multicomponent approach that combined training in memory skills, stress reduction, nutrition, and physical activity.¹²

In addition to the potential positive impacts of health behaviors on brain health, findings suggest that targeted emphasis on health behavior change may have the potential to stave off mild cognitiveimpairment (MCI) or dementia even if for a short time. Given the increasing prevalence rates of MCI with age (6.7% in adults aged 60-64 years, reaching 25.2% in adults aged 80-84 years¹³) and dementia (prevalence of MCI converting to dementia is 18-40%¹⁴), as well as the corresponding emotional, financial, and family-oriented consequences (eg, impact on the well-being of family caregivers), the need for behavioral interventions that seek to optimize brain health is becoming increasingly apparent.

More than 9 million veterans are now aged ≥ 65 years.¹⁵ In addition to representing nearly half of all veterans and a sizable portion of aging adults in the US, older veterans are at increased risk of frailty, mortality, and high rates of chronic medical/mental health conditions that can lead to accelerated cognitive aging.^6-17 Together, these conditions highlight the importance of developing comprehensive psychoeducational and behavioral interventions in this population. To address this need, we developed a novel psychoeducation and behavior change group called the Healthy Aging Project-Brain (HAP-B, pronounced “happy”). The HAP-B intervention was designed to promote healthy brain aging by using empirically supported health behavior change strategies, including education, personalized goal setting, and community support. The primary aim of this project was to develop and implement an intervention that was feasible and acceptable (eg, could be implemented in our setting, was appropriate for a veteran population) and to determine any positive outcomes/preliminary effects on overall health and well-being.

Methods

We recruited veterans aged ≥ 50 years through primary care clinics and self-referrals via flyers in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System (VAPSHCS), Seattle Division hospital. We targeted the “worried well” and welcomed veterans with MCI and mental health diagnoses. Notably, if there were significant mental health and/or substance use concerns, we encouraged veterans to seek focused care and stabilization prior to or concurrent with group participation. Exclusion criteria included presence of suicidality/homicidality, untreated or unstable substance use disorder, or a diagnosis of dementia. Exclusion criteria were assessed by the referring health care providers (HCPs), when appropriate, and through a health record review. Group facilitators used their clinical judgment to monitor participants if they began experiencing more severe cognitive impairment or acute mental health concerns. Although we did not encounter any of these instances, facilitators were prepared to discuss any concerns with the veteran and their referring HCP. Participants sampled were from 1 of 5 groups offered between January 2018 and March 2019. A waiver from the institutional review board was obtained after meeting criteria for quality improvement/quality assurance (QI/QA) for this study.

Procedures

At the initial stages of development, our team conducted a needs assessment to identify health-related areas where HCPs felt veterans would benefit from additional education and support. The needs assessment was conducted across primary care, geriatric extended care, and the Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center (GRECC) at VAPSHCS. Combining the needs assessment results with the available research base, we identified sleep, physical activity, social engagement, and cognitive stimulation as areas for focus. Notably, although nutrition has been identified as an important factor in cognitive aging, a diet and nutrition class was already available to older veterans at the Seattle VA; hence, we chose to limit overlap by not covering this topic in our group.

The group was offered on a quarterly basis as six 90-minute psychoeducational classes to allow time for didactics, discussion, and practice without overloading participants with information. Each group consisted of 4 to 9 veterans led by 2 cofacilitators. Group structure allowed for feedback and ideas from group members as well as accountability for engaging in behavior change. Cognitive functioning was not formally evaluated. Attendees were asked but not required to complete questionnaires before the classes began and again at completion. In addition at the completion of each group, feedback was collected from veterans and used to modify group content (Figure).

Two pilot groups were implemented in early and mid-2018 with iterative changes after each group. Then we revised the assessment battery and implemented the current version (v1.0), which was first offered in the fall of 2018 and was used with the final 3 groups. Noteworthy changes included weekly check-ins to assess use of health behavior logs and progress toward individual goals, additional pre-and postgroup measures, and in vivo skills practice relevant to the topic being discussed that day.

Each session began with a check-in, which included a review of daily logs and SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant/realistic, and timebound) goals from the previous week.¹⁸ This allowed for praise/reinforcement of health behaviors as well as discussion of potential barriers. Second, an overview of research focusing on the relationship between aging, brain health, and the topic of the day was presented. As an example, in the discussion of social engagement, research was presented about the link between social isolation and cognitive decline; the indirect benefits of social support (eg, social support is linked to improved physical and mental health, which, in turn, is associated with less cognitive decline); and the direct benefits of social support (eg, high levels of emotional support are associated with better cognitive function) (Table 1).⁶

Next, facilitators reviewed skills and strategies to improve functioning in the topic of discussion. During the social engagement group, for example, facilitators discussed tips to improve social skills (eg, asking open-ended questions) and how to build social support into a daily routine (eg, scheduling weekly phone calls with family and friends). Following this discussion of skills, an activity was practiced, reinforcing learned material. During the social engagement group, veterans were invited to use small talk strategies with fellow group members. Finally, group sessions ended with each participant identifying a SMART goal for the coming week and troubleshooting potential barriers to success. SMART goals were kept broad, so veterans could choose a goal related to the topic discussed at the group that day (eg, scheduling a phone call with a friend twice in the coming week during the social engagement-focused group) or choose any other goal to focus on (eg, a sleep-related goal). Similarly, goals could change week to week, or could remain the same throughout the 6-week classes.

Measures

The questionnaires used for QI/QA analyses included the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS); Geriatric Depression Scale-Short Form (GDS-S); Social Support Survey Instrument (SSSI); Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI); Medical Outcomes Survey-Short Form (MOS-36 SF); and a self-efficacy scale (adapted from Huckans and colleagues for traumatic brain injury).^19-24 Written feedback was collected at the end of the last group to assess perception of progress, self-perceived behavior change, what was helpful or unhelpful, and how likely the participants were to recommend the group to other veterans (0 to 3, very unlikely to very likely).

To promote consistency with other health and behavior change interventions at the VA, HAP-B used resources from the Whole Health model SMART goals. Research supports the use of self-monitoring techniques like SMART goals for behavior change.²⁵

To facilitate skills practice and self-monitoring between classes, veterans were asked to complete 2 homework assignments. First, at the end of each group, each veteran identified a specific SMART goal to focus on and track in the coming week. Goals were unique to each veteran and allowed to change from week to week. Group discussion around SMART goals involved plans for how to address potential barriers; progress toward goals was discussed at the beginning of the following group. Second, veterans were asked to complete a worksheet used to track progress toward the weekly SMART goal and the specific health behaviors related to the 4 domains targeted by HAP-B. For example, when tracking sleep behaviors, veterans noted bedtime, waketime, number of times they woke up during the night, and length of daytime naps if applicable. Tracking logs were provided at the end of each class for personal purposes only. We asked veterans to rate themselves each week on whether they used the tracking sheet to monitor health behaviors; and how successful they were at accomplishing their previously identified SMART goal. We recorded responses on a 0 to 2 scale (0, not good; 1, fair; 2, good). This rating system was developed and implemented in later groups to promote self-monitoring, accountability, and discussion of potential barriers. However, due to the small sample that completed these ratings and the absence of objective corroborating data, these ratings were not included in the current analyses.

Every participant received a manual in binder format, which provided the didactic information for each group session, skills and strategies discussed in each session, and relevant resources in both the VA and community. For example, social engagement resources included information about volunteer opportunities, VA groups that focus on developing interpersonal skills, and recommendations from past group members on social events (eg, dance lessons at a senior center). We also developed a facilitator version of the manual in which we added comments and guidance on topics for discussion. Materials were developed with the goal of optimizing the ease of dissemination to other sites.

Results

Across the 5 groups, 31 veterans enrolled as participants and completed the initial intake measures, with an average of 6 participants per group (range 4-9). The majority (80%) attended at least 5 of the 6 classes. The mean age was 70.7 years, and 90% of participants were men. Seventy percent of participants self-identified as white, 32% African American, and 3% Native American, which is consistent with VAPSHCS demographics. Of the 31 participants, 16 had a mental health diagnosis, and 6 had a cognitive diagnosis.

At the start of the class, the mean (SD) reports of participants were mild depressive symptoms 5.96 (3.8) on the GDS scale, moderate levels of self-efficacy 3.69 (0.5) on the self-efficacy scale, and moderate levels of satisfaction with life 18.08 (6.8) on the SWLS scale (Table 2). Data from 25 of 31 veterans who completed both pregroup and postgroup surveys were analyzed and paired samples t tests without corrections indicated a reduction in depressive symptoms (P = .01), improved self-efficacy (P = .08), and improved satisfaction with life (P = .03). There were no significant differences in self-reported sleep quality or perceived social support from pregroup to postgroup evaluations. Because the sample size was smaller for the MOS-36, which was not used until group 3, and the subscales are composed of few items each, we conducted exploratory analyses of the 8 MOS-36 subscales and found that well-being, physical functioning, role limitations due to physical and emotional functioning, and energy/fatigue significantly improved over time (Ps < .04).

Discussion

The ability and need to promote brain health with age is an emerging priority as our aging population grows. A growing body of evidence supports the role of health behaviors in healthy brain aging. Education and skills training in a group setting provides a supportive, cost-effective approach for increasing overall health in aging adults. Yet older adults are statistically less likely to engage in these behaviors on a regular basis. The current investigation provides preliminary support for a model of care that uses a comprehensive, experiential psychoeducational approach to facilitate behavior change in older adults. Our aim was to develop and implement an intervention that was feasible and acceptable to our older veterans and to determine any positive outcomes/preliminary effects on overall health and well-being.

Participants indicated that they enjoyed the group, learned new skills (per participant feedback and facilitator observation), and experienced improvements in mood, self-efficacy, and life satisfaction. Given the participants’ positive response to the group and its content, as well as continued referrals by HCPs to this group and low difficulty with ongoing recruitment, this program was deemed both feasible and acceptable in our veteran health care setting. Questions remain about the extent to which participants modified their health behaviors given that we did not collect objective measurements of behaviors (eg, time spent exercising), the duration of behavior change (ie, how long during and after the group were behaviors maintained), and the role of premorbid or concurrent characteristics that may moderate the effect of the intervention on health-related outcomes (eg, sleep quality, perceived social support, overall functioning, concurrent interventions, medications).

Strengths and Limitations

This study had a limited sample size and no control group. However, evidence of significant improvements in depressive symptoms, self-efficacy, and life satisfaction in the development groups without a control group is encouraging. This is particularly noteworthy given that older veterans as a group have higher rates of frailty and mortality than do other similarly aged counterparts.¹⁷An additional weakness is the absence of a brief cognitive assessment or other formal assessment as part of the inclusion/exclusion criteria. However, this program development project provides data from a realistic condition (recruited broadly and with few exclusions, offered in similar format as other VA classes), thus adding strength to the interpretation and possibly the generalizability of these findings.

Conclusions

Future directions include disseminating HAP-B materials and procedures across a variety of sites, both VA and non-VA. In line with this goal, we hope to increase sample size and sample diversity while optimizing protocol integrity during the exportation phase. With a greater sample size and power, we aim to examine the role of self-efficacy and other premorbid factors (eg, cognitive functioning at baseline) as mediators for observed changes in pre-/postmeasures and outcomes. We also hope to incorporate objective measures of behavior change, such as fitness trackers, heart rate/pulse monitors, and actigraphy for monitoring sleep. Finally, we are interested in conducting follow-up with past and future participants to detect changes that may occur with learning new skills following the completion of the group (eg, changes in sleep behavior that take time to take effect) and the extent to which participants continue to use the health behavior skills and strategies to maintain or enhance progress in behavioral goals. Finally, although this intervention was initially designed for use with older veterans receiving health care through the VA, we believe the concepts and work products described here can be used with older adults across a wide range of health care settings. Providers interested in trialing HAP-B at their local site are encouraged to contact the authors.

With a rapidly growing older adult population, increased attention has been given to cognitive changes that occur with age, with a focus on optimizing the cognitive health of aging individuals.¹ Given the absence of pharmaceutical treatments to prevent cognitive decline, there is an increased need for health care systems to offer alternative or behavioral interventions that can mitigate the effects of cognitive decline in aging.

Notably, many individuals are able to maintain or even improve cognitive functioning throughout their lifespan, with some research implicating health behaviors as an important factor for promoting brain health with age. Specifically, sleep, exercise, eating habits, social engagement, and cognitive stimulation have been linked to improved cognitive functioning.^2-8 In addition to the potential benefits for brain health, there is evidence that greater investment in attaining health goals is associated with subjective reports of higher well-being, fewer mental health symptoms, lower physical health stresses, decreased caregiver burden, and increased functional independence linked with longer independent living.⁹ The latter has a substantial financial impact, such that the positive consequence of increased independence is likely staving off the need for admission to assisted living and adult family homes, which can be costly.

Despite the role of health behaviors in brain aging and overall health and functioning, research indicates that only a small number of older adults (12.8%) follow recommended guidelines for healthy lifestyle factors.¹⁰ Education has been identified as one factor associated with the likelihood of engaging in positive health behaviors, prompting the delivery of health-education interventions. Most psychoeducational interventions have traditionally focused on one aspect of behavior change at a time (eg, sleep); however, Gross and colleaguesconducted a meta-analysis of cognitive interventions and in addition to the overall positive benefits (effect size 0.38), they also found suggestive evidence that interventions that combined multiple training strategies were associated with larger training gains (P = .04) after adjusting for multiple comparisons.¹¹ For example, Miller and colleagues found a significant improvement on both subjective and objective measures of memory following a multicomponent approach that combined training in memory skills, stress reduction, nutrition, and physical activity.¹²

In addition to the potential positive impacts of health behaviors on brain health, findings suggest that targeted emphasis on health behavior change may have the potential to stave off mild cognitiveimpairment (MCI) or dementia even if for a short time. Given the increasing prevalence rates of MCI with age (6.7% in adults aged 60-64 years, reaching 25.2% in adults aged 80-84 years¹³) and dementia (prevalence of MCI converting to dementia is 18-40%¹⁴), as well as the corresponding emotional, financial, and family-oriented consequences (eg, impact on the well-being of family caregivers), the need for behavioral interventions that seek to optimize brain health is becoming increasingly apparent.

More than 9 million veterans are now aged ≥ 65 years.¹⁵ In addition to representing nearly half of all veterans and a sizable portion of aging adults in the US, older veterans are at increased risk of frailty, mortality, and high rates of chronic medical/mental health conditions that can lead to accelerated cognitive aging.^6-17 Together, these conditions highlight the importance of developing comprehensive psychoeducational and behavioral interventions in this population. To address this need, we developed a novel psychoeducation and behavior change group called the Healthy Aging Project-Brain (HAP-B, pronounced “happy”). The HAP-B intervention was designed to promote healthy brain aging by using empirically supported health behavior change strategies, including education, personalized goal setting, and community support. The primary aim of this project was to develop and implement an intervention that was feasible and acceptable (eg, could be implemented in our setting, was appropriate for a veteran population) and to determine any positive outcomes/preliminary effects on overall health and well-being.

Methods

We recruited veterans aged ≥ 50 years through primary care clinics and self-referrals via flyers in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System (VAPSHCS), Seattle Division hospital. We targeted the “worried well” and welcomed veterans with MCI and mental health diagnoses. Notably, if there were significant mental health and/or substance use concerns, we encouraged veterans to seek focused care and stabilization prior to or concurrent with group participation. Exclusion criteria included presence of suicidality/homicidality, untreated or unstable substance use disorder, or a diagnosis of dementia. Exclusion criteria were assessed by the referring health care providers (HCPs), when appropriate, and through a health record review. Group facilitators used their clinical judgment to monitor participants if they began experiencing more severe cognitive impairment or acute mental health concerns. Although we did not encounter any of these instances, facilitators were prepared to discuss any concerns with the veteran and their referring HCP. Participants sampled were from 1 of 5 groups offered between January 2018 and March 2019. A waiver from the institutional review board was obtained after meeting criteria for quality improvement/quality assurance (QI/QA) for this study.

Procedures

At the initial stages of development, our team conducted a needs assessment to identify health-related areas where HCPs felt veterans would benefit from additional education and support. The needs assessment was conducted across primary care, geriatric extended care, and the Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center (GRECC) at VAPSHCS. Combining the needs assessment results with the available research base, we identified sleep, physical activity, social engagement, and cognitive stimulation as areas for focus. Notably, although nutrition has been identified as an important factor in cognitive aging, a diet and nutrition class was already available to older veterans at the Seattle VA; hence, we chose to limit overlap by not covering this topic in our group.

The group was offered on a quarterly basis as six 90-minute psychoeducational classes to allow time for didactics, discussion, and practice without overloading participants with information. Each group consisted of 4 to 9 veterans led by 2 cofacilitators. Group structure allowed for feedback and ideas from group members as well as accountability for engaging in behavior change. Cognitive functioning was not formally evaluated. Attendees were asked but not required to complete questionnaires before the classes began and again at completion. In addition at the completion of each group, feedback was collected from veterans and used to modify group content (Figure).

Two pilot groups were implemented in early and mid-2018 with iterative changes after each group. Then we revised the assessment battery and implemented the current version (v1.0), which was first offered in the fall of 2018 and was used with the final 3 groups. Noteworthy changes included weekly check-ins to assess use of health behavior logs and progress toward individual goals, additional pre-and postgroup measures, and in vivo skills practice relevant to the topic being discussed that day.

Each session began with a check-in, which included a review of daily logs and SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant/realistic, and timebound) goals from the previous week.¹⁸ This allowed for praise/reinforcement of health behaviors as well as discussion of potential barriers. Second, an overview of research focusing on the relationship between aging, brain health, and the topic of the day was presented. As an example, in the discussion of social engagement, research was presented about the link between social isolation and cognitive decline; the indirect benefits of social support (eg, social support is linked to improved physical and mental health, which, in turn, is associated with less cognitive decline); and the direct benefits of social support (eg, high levels of emotional support are associated with better cognitive function) (Table 1).⁶

Next, facilitators reviewed skills and strategies to improve functioning in the topic of discussion. During the social engagement group, for example, facilitators discussed tips to improve social skills (eg, asking open-ended questions) and how to build social support into a daily routine (eg, scheduling weekly phone calls with family and friends). Following this discussion of skills, an activity was practiced, reinforcing learned material. During the social engagement group, veterans were invited to use small talk strategies with fellow group members. Finally, group sessions ended with each participant identifying a SMART goal for the coming week and troubleshooting potential barriers to success. SMART goals were kept broad, so veterans could choose a goal related to the topic discussed at the group that day (eg, scheduling a phone call with a friend twice in the coming week during the social engagement-focused group) or choose any other goal to focus on (eg, a sleep-related goal). Similarly, goals could change week to week, or could remain the same throughout the 6-week classes.

Measures

The questionnaires used for QI/QA analyses included the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS); Geriatric Depression Scale-Short Form (GDS-S); Social Support Survey Instrument (SSSI); Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI); Medical Outcomes Survey-Short Form (MOS-36 SF); and a self-efficacy scale (adapted from Huckans and colleagues for traumatic brain injury).^19-24 Written feedback was collected at the end of the last group to assess perception of progress, self-perceived behavior change, what was helpful or unhelpful, and how likely the participants were to recommend the group to other veterans (0 to 3, very unlikely to very likely).

To promote consistency with other health and behavior change interventions at the VA, HAP-B used resources from the Whole Health model SMART goals. Research supports the use of self-monitoring techniques like SMART goals for behavior change.²⁵

To facilitate skills practice and self-monitoring between classes, veterans were asked to complete 2 homework assignments. First, at the end of each group, each veteran identified a specific SMART goal to focus on and track in the coming week. Goals were unique to each veteran and allowed to change from week to week. Group discussion around SMART goals involved plans for how to address potential barriers; progress toward goals was discussed at the beginning of the following group. Second, veterans were asked to complete a worksheet used to track progress toward the weekly SMART goal and the specific health behaviors related to the 4 domains targeted by HAP-B. For example, when tracking sleep behaviors, veterans noted bedtime, waketime, number of times they woke up during the night, and length of daytime naps if applicable. Tracking logs were provided at the end of each class for personal purposes only. We asked veterans to rate themselves each week on whether they used the tracking sheet to monitor health behaviors; and how successful they were at accomplishing their previously identified SMART goal. We recorded responses on a 0 to 2 scale (0, not good; 1, fair; 2, good). This rating system was developed and implemented in later groups to promote self-monitoring, accountability, and discussion of potential barriers. However, due to the small sample that completed these ratings and the absence of objective corroborating data, these ratings were not included in the current analyses.

Every participant received a manual in binder format, which provided the didactic information for each group session, skills and strategies discussed in each session, and relevant resources in both the VA and community. For example, social engagement resources included information about volunteer opportunities, VA groups that focus on developing interpersonal skills, and recommendations from past group members on social events (eg, dance lessons at a senior center). We also developed a facilitator version of the manual in which we added comments and guidance on topics for discussion. Materials were developed with the goal of optimizing the ease of dissemination to other sites.

Results

Across the 5 groups, 31 veterans enrolled as participants and completed the initial intake measures, with an average of 6 participants per group (range 4-9). The majority (80%) attended at least 5 of the 6 classes. The mean age was 70.7 years, and 90% of participants were men. Seventy percent of participants self-identified as white, 32% African American, and 3% Native American, which is consistent with VAPSHCS demographics. Of the 31 participants, 16 had a mental health diagnosis, and 6 had a cognitive diagnosis.

At the start of the class, the mean (SD) reports of participants were mild depressive symptoms 5.96 (3.8) on the GDS scale, moderate levels of self-efficacy 3.69 (0.5) on the self-efficacy scale, and moderate levels of satisfaction with life 18.08 (6.8) on the SWLS scale (Table 2). Data from 25 of 31 veterans who completed both pregroup and postgroup surveys were analyzed and paired samples t tests without corrections indicated a reduction in depressive symptoms (P = .01), improved self-efficacy (P = .08), and improved satisfaction with life (P = .03). There were no significant differences in self-reported sleep quality or perceived social support from pregroup to postgroup evaluations. Because the sample size was smaller for the MOS-36, which was not used until group 3, and the subscales are composed of few items each, we conducted exploratory analyses of the 8 MOS-36 subscales and found that well-being, physical functioning, role limitations due to physical and emotional functioning, and energy/fatigue significantly improved over time (Ps < .04).

Discussion

The ability and need to promote brain health with age is an emerging priority as our aging population grows. A growing body of evidence supports the role of health behaviors in healthy brain aging. Education and skills training in a group setting provides a supportive, cost-effective approach for increasing overall health in aging adults. Yet older adults are statistically less likely to engage in these behaviors on a regular basis. The current investigation provides preliminary support for a model of care that uses a comprehensive, experiential psychoeducational approach to facilitate behavior change in older adults. Our aim was to develop and implement an intervention that was feasible and acceptable to our older veterans and to determine any positive outcomes/preliminary effects on overall health and well-being.

Participants indicated that they enjoyed the group, learned new skills (per participant feedback and facilitator observation), and experienced improvements in mood, self-efficacy, and life satisfaction. Given the participants’ positive response to the group and its content, as well as continued referrals by HCPs to this group and low difficulty with ongoing recruitment, this program was deemed both feasible and acceptable in our veteran health care setting. Questions remain about the extent to which participants modified their health behaviors given that we did not collect objective measurements of behaviors (eg, time spent exercising), the duration of behavior change (ie, how long during and after the group were behaviors maintained), and the role of premorbid or concurrent characteristics that may moderate the effect of the intervention on health-related outcomes (eg, sleep quality, perceived social support, overall functioning, concurrent interventions, medications).

Strengths and Limitations

This study had a limited sample size and no control group. However, evidence of significant improvements in depressive symptoms, self-efficacy, and life satisfaction in the development groups without a control group is encouraging. This is particularly noteworthy given that older veterans as a group have higher rates of frailty and mortality than do other similarly aged counterparts.¹⁷An additional weakness is the absence of a brief cognitive assessment or other formal assessment as part of the inclusion/exclusion criteria. However, this program development project provides data from a realistic condition (recruited broadly and with few exclusions, offered in similar format as other VA classes), thus adding strength to the interpretation and possibly the generalizability of these findings.

Conclusions

Future directions include disseminating HAP-B materials and procedures across a variety of sites, both VA and non-VA. In line with this goal, we hope to increase sample size and sample diversity while optimizing protocol integrity during the exportation phase. With a greater sample size and power, we aim to examine the role of self-efficacy and other premorbid factors (eg, cognitive functioning at baseline) as mediators for observed changes in pre-/postmeasures and outcomes. We also hope to incorporate objective measures of behavior change, such as fitness trackers, heart rate/pulse monitors, and actigraphy for monitoring sleep. Finally, we are interested in conducting follow-up with past and future participants to detect changes that may occur with learning new skills following the completion of the group (eg, changes in sleep behavior that take time to take effect) and the extent to which participants continue to use the health behavior skills and strategies to maintain or enhance progress in behavioral goals. Finally, although this intervention was initially designed for use with older veterans receiving health care through the VA, we believe the concepts and work products described here can be used with older adults across a wide range of health care settings. Providers interested in trialing HAP-B at their local site are encouraged to contact the authors.

Low to moderate alcohol consumption is associated with better cognitive function and slower cognitive decline in middle-aged and older adults, new research suggests. However, at least one expert urges caution in interpreting the findings.

Investigators found that consuming 10-14 alcoholic drinks per week had the strongest cognitive benefit. The findings “add more weight” to the growing body of research identifying beneficial cognitive effects of moderate alcohol consumption, said lead author, Ruiyuan Zhang, MD, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Georgia, Athens. However, Dr. Zhang emphasized that nondrinkers should not take up drinking to protect brain function, as alcohol can have negative effects.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Slower cognitive decline

The observational study was a secondary analysis of data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative U.S. survey of middle-aged and older adults. The survey, which began in 1992, is conducted every 2 years and collects health and economic data.

The current analysis used data from 1996 to 2008 and included information from individuals who participated in at least three surveys. The study included 19,887 participants, with a mean age 61.8 years. Most (60.1%) were women and white (85.2%). Mean follow-up was 9.1 years.

Researchers measured cognitive domains of mental status, word recall, and vocabulary. They also calculated a total cognition score, with higher scores indicating better cognitive abilities.

For each cognitive function measure, researchers categorized participants into a consistently low–trajectory group in which cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently low or a consistently high–trajectory group, where cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently high.

Based on self-reports, the investigators categorized participants as never drinkers (41.8%), former drinkers (39.5%), or current drinkers (18.7%). For current drinkers, researchers determined the number of drinking days per week and number of drinks per day. They further categorized these participants as low to moderate drinkers or heavy drinkers.

One drink was defined as a 12-ounce bottle of beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine, or a 1.5-ounce shot of spirits, said Dr. Zhang.

Women who consumed 8 or more drinks per week and men who drank 15 or more drinks per week were considered heavy drinkers. Other current drinkers were deemed low to moderate drinkers. Most current drinkers (85.2%) were low to moderate drinkers.

Other covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, years of education, marital status, tobacco smoking status, and body mass index.

Results showed moderate drinking was associated with relatively high cognitive test scores. After controlling for all covariates, compared with never drinkers, current low to moderate drinkers were significantly less likely to have consistently low trajectories for total cognitive score (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.74), mental status (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63-0.81), word recall (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.69-0.80), and vocabulary (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56-0.74) (all P < .001).

Former drinkers also had better cognitive outcomes for all cognitive domains. Heavy drinkers had lower odds of being in the consistently low trajectory group only for the vocabulary test.
 

Heavy drinking ‘risky’

Because few participants were deemed to be heavy drinkers, the power to identify an association between heavy drinking and cognitive function was limited. Dr. Zhang acknowledged, though he noted that heavy drinking is “risky.”

“We found that, after the drinking dosage passes the moderate level, the risk of low cognitive function increases very fast, which indicates that heavy drinking may harm cognitive function.” Limiting alcohol consumption “is still very important,” he said.

The associations of alcohol and cognitive functions differed by race/ethnicity. Low to moderate drinking was significantly associated with a lower odds of having a consistently low trajectory for all four cognitive function measures only among white participants.

A possible reason for this is that the study had so few African Americans (who made up only 14.8% of the sample), which limited the ability to identify relationships between alcohol intake and cognitive function, said Dr. Zhang. “Another reason is that the sensitivity to alcohol may be different between white and African American subjects.”

There was a significant U-shaped association between weekly amounts of alcohol and the odds of being in the consistently low–trajectory group for all cognitive functions. Depending on the function tested, the optimal number of weekly drinks ranged from 10-14.

Dr. Zhang noted that, when women were examined separately, alcohol consumption had a significant U-shaped relationship only with word recall, with the optimal dosage being around eight drinks.
 

U-shaped relationship an ‘important finding’

The U-shaped relationship is “an important finding,” said Dr. Zhang. “It shows that the human body may act differently to low and high doses of alcohol. Knowing why and how this happens is very important as it would help us understand how alcohol affects the function of the human body.”

Sensitivity analyses among participants with no chronic diseases showed the U-shaped association was still significant for scores of total word recall and vocabulary, but not for mental status or total cognition score.

The authors noted that 77.2% of participants had at least one chronic disease. They maintained that the association between alcohol consumption and cognitive function may be applicable both to healthy people and to those with a chronic disease.

The study also found that low to moderate drinkers had slower rates of cognitive decline over time for all cognition domains.

Although the mechanisms underlying the cognitive benefits of alcohol consumption are unclear, the authors believe it may be via cerebrovascular and cardiovascular pathways.

Alcohol may increase levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor, a key regulator of neuronal plasticity and development in the dorsal striatum, they noted.
 

Balancing act

However, there’s also evidence that drinking, especially heavy drinking, increases the risk of hypertension, stroke, liver damage, and some cancers. “We think the role of alcohol drinking in cognitive function may be a balance of its beneficial and harmful effects on the cardiovascular system,” said Dr. Zhang.

“For the low to moderate drinker, the beneficial effects may outweigh the harmful effects on the small blood vessels in the brain. In this way, it could preserve cognition,” he added.

Dr. Zhang also noted that the study focused on middle-aged and older adults. “We can’t say whether or not moderate alcohol could benefit younger people” because they may have different characteristics, he said.

The findings of other studies examining the effects of alcohol on cognitive function are mixed. While studies have identified a beneficial effect, others have uncovered no, minimal, or adverse effects. This could be due to the use of different tests of cognitive function or different study populations, said Dr. Zhang.

A limitation of the current study was that assessment of alcohol consumption was based on self-report, which might have introduced recall bias. In addition, because individuals tend to underestimate their alcohol consumption, heavy drinkers could be misclassified as low to moderate drinkers, and low to moderate drinkers as former drinkers.

“This may make our study underestimate the association between low to moderate drinking and cognitive function,” said Dr. Zhang. In addition, alcohol consumption tended to change with time, and this change may be associated with other factors that led to changes in cognitive function, the authors noted.
 

Interpret with caution

Commenting on the study, Brent P. Forester, MD, chief of the Center of Excellence in Geriatric Psychiatry at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the American Psychiatric Association Council on Geriatric Psychiatry, said he views the study with some trepidation.

“As a clinician taking care of older adults, I would be very cautious about overinterpreting the beneficial effects of alcohol before we understand the mechanism better,” he said.

He noted that all of the risk factors associated with heart attack and stroke are also risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline more broadly. “One of the issues here is how in the world does alcohol reduce cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risks, if you know it increases the risk of hypertension and stroke, regardless of dose.”

With regard to the possible impact of alcohol on brain-derived neurotrophic factor, Dr. Forester said, “it’s an interesting idea” but the actual mechanism is still unclear.

Even with dietary studies, such as those on the Mediterranean diet that include red wine, showing cognitive benefit, Dr. Forester said he’s still concerned about the adverse effects of alcohol on older people. These can include falls and sleep disturbances in addition to cognitive issues, and these effects can increase with age.

He was somewhat surprised at the level of alcohol that the study determined was beneficial. “Essentially, what they’re saying here is that, for men, it’s two drinks a day.” This could be “problematic” as two drinks per day can quickly escalate as individuals build tolerance.

He also pointed out that the study does not determine cause and effect, noting that it’s only an association.

Dr. Forester said the study raises a number of questions, including the type of alcohol study participants consumed and whether this has any impact on cognitive benefit. He also questioned whether the mediating effects of alcohol were associated with something that wasn’t measured, such as socioeconomic status.

Another question, he said, is what factors in individuals’ medical or psychiatric history determine whether they are more or less likely to benefit from low to moderate alcohol intake.

Perhaps alcohol should be recommended only for “select subpopulations” – for example, those who are healthy and have a family history of cognitive decline –but not for those with a history of substance abuse, including alcohol abuse, said Dr. Forester.

“For this population, the last thing you want to do is recommend alcohol to reduce risk of cognitive decline,” he cautioned.

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. The investigators and Dr. Forester have reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Low to moderate alcohol consumption is associated with better cognitive function and slower cognitive decline in middle-aged and older adults, new research suggests. However, at least one expert urges caution in interpreting the findings.

Investigators found that consuming 10-14 alcoholic drinks per week had the strongest cognitive benefit. The findings “add more weight” to the growing body of research identifying beneficial cognitive effects of moderate alcohol consumption, said lead author, Ruiyuan Zhang, MD, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Georgia, Athens. However, Dr. Zhang emphasized that nondrinkers should not take up drinking to protect brain function, as alcohol can have negative effects.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Slower cognitive decline

The observational study was a secondary analysis of data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative U.S. survey of middle-aged and older adults. The survey, which began in 1992, is conducted every 2 years and collects health and economic data.

The current analysis used data from 1996 to 2008 and included information from individuals who participated in at least three surveys. The study included 19,887 participants, with a mean age 61.8 years. Most (60.1%) were women and white (85.2%). Mean follow-up was 9.1 years.

Researchers measured cognitive domains of mental status, word recall, and vocabulary. They also calculated a total cognition score, with higher scores indicating better cognitive abilities.

For each cognitive function measure, researchers categorized participants into a consistently low–trajectory group in which cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently low or a consistently high–trajectory group, where cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently high.

Based on self-reports, the investigators categorized participants as never drinkers (41.8%), former drinkers (39.5%), or current drinkers (18.7%). For current drinkers, researchers determined the number of drinking days per week and number of drinks per day. They further categorized these participants as low to moderate drinkers or heavy drinkers.

One drink was defined as a 12-ounce bottle of beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine, or a 1.5-ounce shot of spirits, said Dr. Zhang.

Women who consumed 8 or more drinks per week and men who drank 15 or more drinks per week were considered heavy drinkers. Other current drinkers were deemed low to moderate drinkers. Most current drinkers (85.2%) were low to moderate drinkers.

Other covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, years of education, marital status, tobacco smoking status, and body mass index.

Results showed moderate drinking was associated with relatively high cognitive test scores. After controlling for all covariates, compared with never drinkers, current low to moderate drinkers were significantly less likely to have consistently low trajectories for total cognitive score (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.74), mental status (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63-0.81), word recall (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.69-0.80), and vocabulary (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56-0.74) (all P < .001).

Former drinkers also had better cognitive outcomes for all cognitive domains. Heavy drinkers had lower odds of being in the consistently low trajectory group only for the vocabulary test.
 

Heavy drinking ‘risky’

Because few participants were deemed to be heavy drinkers, the power to identify an association between heavy drinking and cognitive function was limited. Dr. Zhang acknowledged, though he noted that heavy drinking is “risky.”

“We found that, after the drinking dosage passes the moderate level, the risk of low cognitive function increases very fast, which indicates that heavy drinking may harm cognitive function.” Limiting alcohol consumption “is still very important,” he said.

The associations of alcohol and cognitive functions differed by race/ethnicity. Low to moderate drinking was significantly associated with a lower odds of having a consistently low trajectory for all four cognitive function measures only among white participants.

A possible reason for this is that the study had so few African Americans (who made up only 14.8% of the sample), which limited the ability to identify relationships between alcohol intake and cognitive function, said Dr. Zhang. “Another reason is that the sensitivity to alcohol may be different between white and African American subjects.”

There was a significant U-shaped association between weekly amounts of alcohol and the odds of being in the consistently low–trajectory group for all cognitive functions. Depending on the function tested, the optimal number of weekly drinks ranged from 10-14.

Dr. Zhang noted that, when women were examined separately, alcohol consumption had a significant U-shaped relationship only with word recall, with the optimal dosage being around eight drinks.
 

U-shaped relationship an ‘important finding’

The U-shaped relationship is “an important finding,” said Dr. Zhang. “It shows that the human body may act differently to low and high doses of alcohol. Knowing why and how this happens is very important as it would help us understand how alcohol affects the function of the human body.”

Sensitivity analyses among participants with no chronic diseases showed the U-shaped association was still significant for scores of total word recall and vocabulary, but not for mental status or total cognition score.

The authors noted that 77.2% of participants had at least one chronic disease. They maintained that the association between alcohol consumption and cognitive function may be applicable both to healthy people and to those with a chronic disease.

The study also found that low to moderate drinkers had slower rates of cognitive decline over time for all cognition domains.

Although the mechanisms underlying the cognitive benefits of alcohol consumption are unclear, the authors believe it may be via cerebrovascular and cardiovascular pathways.

Alcohol may increase levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor, a key regulator of neuronal plasticity and development in the dorsal striatum, they noted.
 

Balancing act

However, there’s also evidence that drinking, especially heavy drinking, increases the risk of hypertension, stroke, liver damage, and some cancers. “We think the role of alcohol drinking in cognitive function may be a balance of its beneficial and harmful effects on the cardiovascular system,” said Dr. Zhang.

“For the low to moderate drinker, the beneficial effects may outweigh the harmful effects on the small blood vessels in the brain. In this way, it could preserve cognition,” he added.

Dr. Zhang also noted that the study focused on middle-aged and older adults. “We can’t say whether or not moderate alcohol could benefit younger people” because they may have different characteristics, he said.

The findings of other studies examining the effects of alcohol on cognitive function are mixed. While studies have identified a beneficial effect, others have uncovered no, minimal, or adverse effects. This could be due to the use of different tests of cognitive function or different study populations, said Dr. Zhang.

A limitation of the current study was that assessment of alcohol consumption was based on self-report, which might have introduced recall bias. In addition, because individuals tend to underestimate their alcohol consumption, heavy drinkers could be misclassified as low to moderate drinkers, and low to moderate drinkers as former drinkers.

“This may make our study underestimate the association between low to moderate drinking and cognitive function,” said Dr. Zhang. In addition, alcohol consumption tended to change with time, and this change may be associated with other factors that led to changes in cognitive function, the authors noted.
 

Interpret with caution

Commenting on the study, Brent P. Forester, MD, chief of the Center of Excellence in Geriatric Psychiatry at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the American Psychiatric Association Council on Geriatric Psychiatry, said he views the study with some trepidation.

“As a clinician taking care of older adults, I would be very cautious about overinterpreting the beneficial effects of alcohol before we understand the mechanism better,” he said.

He noted that all of the risk factors associated with heart attack and stroke are also risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline more broadly. “One of the issues here is how in the world does alcohol reduce cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risks, if you know it increases the risk of hypertension and stroke, regardless of dose.”

With regard to the possible impact of alcohol on brain-derived neurotrophic factor, Dr. Forester said, “it’s an interesting idea” but the actual mechanism is still unclear.

Even with dietary studies, such as those on the Mediterranean diet that include red wine, showing cognitive benefit, Dr. Forester said he’s still concerned about the adverse effects of alcohol on older people. These can include falls and sleep disturbances in addition to cognitive issues, and these effects can increase with age.

He was somewhat surprised at the level of alcohol that the study determined was beneficial. “Essentially, what they’re saying here is that, for men, it’s two drinks a day.” This could be “problematic” as two drinks per day can quickly escalate as individuals build tolerance.

He also pointed out that the study does not determine cause and effect, noting that it’s only an association.

Dr. Forester said the study raises a number of questions, including the type of alcohol study participants consumed and whether this has any impact on cognitive benefit. He also questioned whether the mediating effects of alcohol were associated with something that wasn’t measured, such as socioeconomic status.

Another question, he said, is what factors in individuals’ medical or psychiatric history determine whether they are more or less likely to benefit from low to moderate alcohol intake.

Perhaps alcohol should be recommended only for “select subpopulations” – for example, those who are healthy and have a family history of cognitive decline –but not for those with a history of substance abuse, including alcohol abuse, said Dr. Forester.

“For this population, the last thing you want to do is recommend alcohol to reduce risk of cognitive decline,” he cautioned.

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. The investigators and Dr. Forester have reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Low to moderate alcohol consumption is associated with better cognitive function and slower cognitive decline in middle-aged and older adults, new research suggests. However, at least one expert urges caution in interpreting the findings.

Investigators found that consuming 10-14 alcoholic drinks per week had the strongest cognitive benefit. The findings “add more weight” to the growing body of research identifying beneficial cognitive effects of moderate alcohol consumption, said lead author, Ruiyuan Zhang, MD, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Georgia, Athens. However, Dr. Zhang emphasized that nondrinkers should not take up drinking to protect brain function, as alcohol can have negative effects.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Slower cognitive decline

The observational study was a secondary analysis of data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative U.S. survey of middle-aged and older adults. The survey, which began in 1992, is conducted every 2 years and collects health and economic data.

The current analysis used data from 1996 to 2008 and included information from individuals who participated in at least three surveys. The study included 19,887 participants, with a mean age 61.8 years. Most (60.1%) were women and white (85.2%). Mean follow-up was 9.1 years.

Researchers measured cognitive domains of mental status, word recall, and vocabulary. They also calculated a total cognition score, with higher scores indicating better cognitive abilities.

For each cognitive function measure, researchers categorized participants into a consistently low–trajectory group in which cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently low or a consistently high–trajectory group, where cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently high.

Based on self-reports, the investigators categorized participants as never drinkers (41.8%), former drinkers (39.5%), or current drinkers (18.7%). For current drinkers, researchers determined the number of drinking days per week and number of drinks per day. They further categorized these participants as low to moderate drinkers or heavy drinkers.

One drink was defined as a 12-ounce bottle of beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine, or a 1.5-ounce shot of spirits, said Dr. Zhang.

Women who consumed 8 or more drinks per week and men who drank 15 or more drinks per week were considered heavy drinkers. Other current drinkers were deemed low to moderate drinkers. Most current drinkers (85.2%) were low to moderate drinkers.

Other covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, years of education, marital status, tobacco smoking status, and body mass index.

Results showed moderate drinking was associated with relatively high cognitive test scores. After controlling for all covariates, compared with never drinkers, current low to moderate drinkers were significantly less likely to have consistently low trajectories for total cognitive score (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.74), mental status (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63-0.81), word recall (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.69-0.80), and vocabulary (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56-0.74) (all P < .001).

Former drinkers also had better cognitive outcomes for all cognitive domains. Heavy drinkers had lower odds of being in the consistently low trajectory group only for the vocabulary test.
 

Heavy drinking ‘risky’

Because few participants were deemed to be heavy drinkers, the power to identify an association between heavy drinking and cognitive function was limited. Dr. Zhang acknowledged, though he noted that heavy drinking is “risky.”

“We found that, after the drinking dosage passes the moderate level, the risk of low cognitive function increases very fast, which indicates that heavy drinking may harm cognitive function.” Limiting alcohol consumption “is still very important,” he said.

The associations of alcohol and cognitive functions differed by race/ethnicity. Low to moderate drinking was significantly associated with a lower odds of having a consistently low trajectory for all four cognitive function measures only among white participants.

A possible reason for this is that the study had so few African Americans (who made up only 14.8% of the sample), which limited the ability to identify relationships between alcohol intake and cognitive function, said Dr. Zhang. “Another reason is that the sensitivity to alcohol may be different between white and African American subjects.”

There was a significant U-shaped association between weekly amounts of alcohol and the odds of being in the consistently low–trajectory group for all cognitive functions. Depending on the function tested, the optimal number of weekly drinks ranged from 10-14.

Dr. Zhang noted that, when women were examined separately, alcohol consumption had a significant U-shaped relationship only with word recall, with the optimal dosage being around eight drinks.
 

U-shaped relationship an ‘important finding’

The U-shaped relationship is “an important finding,” said Dr. Zhang. “It shows that the human body may act differently to low and high doses of alcohol. Knowing why and how this happens is very important as it would help us understand how alcohol affects the function of the human body.”

Sensitivity analyses among participants with no chronic diseases showed the U-shaped association was still significant for scores of total word recall and vocabulary, but not for mental status or total cognition score.

The authors noted that 77.2% of participants had at least one chronic disease. They maintained that the association between alcohol consumption and cognitive function may be applicable both to healthy people and to those with a chronic disease.

The study also found that low to moderate drinkers had slower rates of cognitive decline over time for all cognition domains.

Although the mechanisms underlying the cognitive benefits of alcohol consumption are unclear, the authors believe it may be via cerebrovascular and cardiovascular pathways.

Alcohol may increase levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor, a key regulator of neuronal plasticity and development in the dorsal striatum, they noted.
 

Balancing act

However, there’s also evidence that drinking, especially heavy drinking, increases the risk of hypertension, stroke, liver damage, and some cancers. “We think the role of alcohol drinking in cognitive function may be a balance of its beneficial and harmful effects on the cardiovascular system,” said Dr. Zhang.

“For the low to moderate drinker, the beneficial effects may outweigh the harmful effects on the small blood vessels in the brain. In this way, it could preserve cognition,” he added.

Dr. Zhang also noted that the study focused on middle-aged and older adults. “We can’t say whether or not moderate alcohol could benefit younger people” because they may have different characteristics, he said.

The findings of other studies examining the effects of alcohol on cognitive function are mixed. While studies have identified a beneficial effect, others have uncovered no, minimal, or adverse effects. This could be due to the use of different tests of cognitive function or different study populations, said Dr. Zhang.

A limitation of the current study was that assessment of alcohol consumption was based on self-report, which might have introduced recall bias. In addition, because individuals tend to underestimate their alcohol consumption, heavy drinkers could be misclassified as low to moderate drinkers, and low to moderate drinkers as former drinkers.

“This may make our study underestimate the association between low to moderate drinking and cognitive function,” said Dr. Zhang. In addition, alcohol consumption tended to change with time, and this change may be associated with other factors that led to changes in cognitive function, the authors noted.
 

Interpret with caution

Commenting on the study, Brent P. Forester, MD, chief of the Center of Excellence in Geriatric Psychiatry at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the American Psychiatric Association Council on Geriatric Psychiatry, said he views the study with some trepidation.

“As a clinician taking care of older adults, I would be very cautious about overinterpreting the beneficial effects of alcohol before we understand the mechanism better,” he said.

He noted that all of the risk factors associated with heart attack and stroke are also risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline more broadly. “One of the issues here is how in the world does alcohol reduce cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risks, if you know it increases the risk of hypertension and stroke, regardless of dose.”

With regard to the possible impact of alcohol on brain-derived neurotrophic factor, Dr. Forester said, “it’s an interesting idea” but the actual mechanism is still unclear.

Even with dietary studies, such as those on the Mediterranean diet that include red wine, showing cognitive benefit, Dr. Forester said he’s still concerned about the adverse effects of alcohol on older people. These can include falls and sleep disturbances in addition to cognitive issues, and these effects can increase with age.

He was somewhat surprised at the level of alcohol that the study determined was beneficial. “Essentially, what they’re saying here is that, for men, it’s two drinks a day.” This could be “problematic” as two drinks per day can quickly escalate as individuals build tolerance.

He also pointed out that the study does not determine cause and effect, noting that it’s only an association.

Dr. Forester said the study raises a number of questions, including the type of alcohol study participants consumed and whether this has any impact on cognitive benefit. He also questioned whether the mediating effects of alcohol were associated with something that wasn’t measured, such as socioeconomic status.

Another question, he said, is what factors in individuals’ medical or psychiatric history determine whether they are more or less likely to benefit from low to moderate alcohol intake.

Perhaps alcohol should be recommended only for “select subpopulations” – for example, those who are healthy and have a family history of cognitive decline –but not for those with a history of substance abuse, including alcohol abuse, said Dr. Forester.

“For this population, the last thing you want to do is recommend alcohol to reduce risk of cognitive decline,” he cautioned.

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. The investigators and Dr. Forester have reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Older individuals had a higher risk of complications 30 days after undergoing a colonoscopy as an outpatient procedure compared with a younger group of colorectal cancer screening–eligible individuals, according to recent research published in JAMA Network Open.

Natalia Causada-Calo, MD, MSc, division of gastroenterology, at St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, and colleagues performed a retrospective cohort study of 38,069 patients in Ontario administrative databases who underwent colonoscopy between April 2008 and September 2017. The patients included were older than 50 years (mean age, 65.2 years) with a majority (73.1%) undergoing their first colonoscopy. Those with inflammatory bowel disease and hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes were excluded. Researchers divided patients into groups based on age, placing patients aged 50-74 years into a colorectal cancer–screening eligible group (30,443 patients), and individuals 75 years or older into an “older cohort” (7,627 patients). Dr. Causada-Calo and colleagues analyzed 30-day admission to hospital or emergency department, and also examined 30-day all-cause mortality and incidence of colorectal cancer.

Among individuals in the older cohort, 515 of 7,627 patients (6.8%) experienced complications after colonoscopy compared with 795 of 30,443 patients (2.6%) in the screening-eligible cohort (P less than .001). Older age was an independent risk factor for postcolonoscopy complications, with individuals older than 75 years having twofold greater odds of complications after colonoscopy (odds ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-2.6) compared with individuals aged 50-74 years.

Other independent risk factors for complications included liver disease (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 3.5-6.5), heart failure (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.5-4.6), smoking history (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.4-4.3), obesity (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.2), chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0), cardiac arrhythmia (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.2), anemia (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.7), and hypertension (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5). Individuals who had previously undergone colonoscopy had a lower risk of complications after the procedure (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.7-1.0).

There was a significantly higher incidence of colorectal cancer treated with surgery in the older group (119 of 7,626; 1.6%) compared with the younger (144 of 30,443; 0.5%) group (P less than .001). Mortality from any cause was also significantly higher in the older group (20 patients; 0.2%) compared with the younger (39 patients; 0.1%) group (P less than .001).

“In accordance with our findings, the decision to perform colonoscopy should be considered carefully in older patients, particularly in the presence of comorbidities,” Dr. Causada-Calo and colleagues wrote.

Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, GI section chief at Minneapolis VA Health Care System and professor of medicine at University of Minnesota, said in an interview that screening colonoscopy in a population older than 75 years should be an individualized discussion with a patient who has minimal comorbidities, and the decision to move forward with a colonoscopy should be considered only if a patient’s life expectancy is at least 10 years.

“This study shows that diagnostic colonoscopy is associated with high risk of complications and quantifies the risk, to frame the discussion with the patient about going forward,” she said. “Colorectal cancers are slow growing. In individuals age 75 and older, competing health risks and risk of the colonoscopy often outweigh the small benefit they may derive. Older individuals should thus focus on other health priorities.”

Physicians should make their older patients aware that there is a risk for serious adverse events, including death, which increases after age 75. “[The] risk-benefit ratio for performing colonoscopy needs to carefully weighed,” Dr. Shaukat said. “[T]he patient should be presented with options, including the option of no screening.”

The American Cancer Society advocates “for individualized decision-making regarding screening for individuals after 75 but [does] not give any firm recommendations,” while the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force noted in its recommendations on colorectal cancer screening that the “harms are large and benefits are small” after 75 years of age, and choice to screen for colorectal cancer in that age group is an individual one, Dr. Shaukat said.

Robert A. Smith, PhD, senior vice president of cancer screening at the American Cancer Society, said in an interview that while colonoscopy is the dominant screening test for colorectal cancer, it is not known how often physicians and their older patients discuss noninvasive colorectal cancer screening methods. Noninvasive screening methods such as a high-sensitivity stool test should be a consideration even for older adults with mild chronic conditions, “especially if they have a history of screening with negative results,” he said. “[A] history of regular screening with normal test results should be a basis for considering cessation of screening after age 75, or at least transition to a test with lower risks of complications.”

Future research in this area could use a hybrid model of screening, such as using different tests among various age groups or risk groups, to see whether an invasive or noninvasive method would lower a complication rate, Dr. Smith said. “Further, we need to have a greater understanding of when individuals can confidently stop getting screened, based on their underlying risk and history of prior screening results,” he noted.

Dr. Shaukat said future studies should focus on randomized trials for individuals 75 years and older to assess the benefits and harms of screening, “[d]eveloping risk stratification tools that factor in an individual’s risk of colon cancer, their life expectancy, and guide individualized decision making to undergo screening.”

Dr. Armstrong is the chair of the National Colon Cancer Screening Network for the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer and the past president of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology. Dr. Albashir has received honoraria and speaker fees from Janssen, and grants from AbbVie and ATGen. Dr. Shaukat and Dr. Smith report no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Causada-Calo N et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(6):e208958.

Older individuals had a higher risk of complications 30 days after undergoing a colonoscopy as an outpatient procedure compared with a younger group of colorectal cancer screening–eligible individuals, according to recent research published in JAMA Network Open.

Natalia Causada-Calo, MD, MSc, division of gastroenterology, at St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, and colleagues performed a retrospective cohort study of 38,069 patients in Ontario administrative databases who underwent colonoscopy between April 2008 and September 2017. The patients included were older than 50 years (mean age, 65.2 years) with a majority (73.1%) undergoing their first colonoscopy. Those with inflammatory bowel disease and hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes were excluded. Researchers divided patients into groups based on age, placing patients aged 50-74 years into a colorectal cancer–screening eligible group (30,443 patients), and individuals 75 years or older into an “older cohort” (7,627 patients). Dr. Causada-Calo and colleagues analyzed 30-day admission to hospital or emergency department, and also examined 30-day all-cause mortality and incidence of colorectal cancer.

Among individuals in the older cohort, 515 of 7,627 patients (6.8%) experienced complications after colonoscopy compared with 795 of 30,443 patients (2.6%) in the screening-eligible cohort (P less than .001). Older age was an independent risk factor for postcolonoscopy complications, with individuals older than 75 years having twofold greater odds of complications after colonoscopy (odds ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-2.6) compared with individuals aged 50-74 years.

Other independent risk factors for complications included liver disease (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 3.5-6.5), heart failure (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.5-4.6), smoking history (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.4-4.3), obesity (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.2), chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0), cardiac arrhythmia (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.2), anemia (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.7), and hypertension (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5). Individuals who had previously undergone colonoscopy had a lower risk of complications after the procedure (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.7-1.0).

There was a significantly higher incidence of colorectal cancer treated with surgery in the older group (119 of 7,626; 1.6%) compared with the younger (144 of 30,443; 0.5%) group (P less than .001). Mortality from any cause was also significantly higher in the older group (20 patients; 0.2%) compared with the younger (39 patients; 0.1%) group (P less than .001).

“In accordance with our findings, the decision to perform colonoscopy should be considered carefully in older patients, particularly in the presence of comorbidities,” Dr. Causada-Calo and colleagues wrote.

Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, GI section chief at Minneapolis VA Health Care System and professor of medicine at University of Minnesota, said in an interview that screening colonoscopy in a population older than 75 years should be an individualized discussion with a patient who has minimal comorbidities, and the decision to move forward with a colonoscopy should be considered only if a patient’s life expectancy is at least 10 years.

“This study shows that diagnostic colonoscopy is associated with high risk of complications and quantifies the risk, to frame the discussion with the patient about going forward,” she said. “Colorectal cancers are slow growing. In individuals age 75 and older, competing health risks and risk of the colonoscopy often outweigh the small benefit they may derive. Older individuals should thus focus on other health priorities.”

Physicians should make their older patients aware that there is a risk for serious adverse events, including death, which increases after age 75. “[The] risk-benefit ratio for performing colonoscopy needs to carefully weighed,” Dr. Shaukat said. “[T]he patient should be presented with options, including the option of no screening.”

The American Cancer Society advocates “for individualized decision-making regarding screening for individuals after 75 but [does] not give any firm recommendations,” while the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force noted in its recommendations on colorectal cancer screening that the “harms are large and benefits are small” after 75 years of age, and choice to screen for colorectal cancer in that age group is an individual one, Dr. Shaukat said.

Robert A. Smith, PhD, senior vice president of cancer screening at the American Cancer Society, said in an interview that while colonoscopy is the dominant screening test for colorectal cancer, it is not known how often physicians and their older patients discuss noninvasive colorectal cancer screening methods. Noninvasive screening methods such as a high-sensitivity stool test should be a consideration even for older adults with mild chronic conditions, “especially if they have a history of screening with negative results,” he said. “[A] history of regular screening with normal test results should be a basis for considering cessation of screening after age 75, or at least transition to a test with lower risks of complications.”

Future research in this area could use a hybrid model of screening, such as using different tests among various age groups or risk groups, to see whether an invasive or noninvasive method would lower a complication rate, Dr. Smith said. “Further, we need to have a greater understanding of when individuals can confidently stop getting screened, based on their underlying risk and history of prior screening results,” he noted.

Dr. Shaukat said future studies should focus on randomized trials for individuals 75 years and older to assess the benefits and harms of screening, “[d]eveloping risk stratification tools that factor in an individual’s risk of colon cancer, their life expectancy, and guide individualized decision making to undergo screening.”

Dr. Armstrong is the chair of the National Colon Cancer Screening Network for the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer and the past president of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology. Dr. Albashir has received honoraria and speaker fees from Janssen, and grants from AbbVie and ATGen. Dr. Shaukat and Dr. Smith report no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Causada-Calo N et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(6):e208958.

Older individuals had a higher risk of complications 30 days after undergoing a colonoscopy as an outpatient procedure compared with a younger group of colorectal cancer screening–eligible individuals, according to recent research published in JAMA Network Open.

Natalia Causada-Calo, MD, MSc, division of gastroenterology, at St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, and colleagues performed a retrospective cohort study of 38,069 patients in Ontario administrative databases who underwent colonoscopy between April 2008 and September 2017. The patients included were older than 50 years (mean age, 65.2 years) with a majority (73.1%) undergoing their first colonoscopy. Those with inflammatory bowel disease and hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes were excluded. Researchers divided patients into groups based on age, placing patients aged 50-74 years into a colorectal cancer–screening eligible group (30,443 patients), and individuals 75 years or older into an “older cohort” (7,627 patients). Dr. Causada-Calo and colleagues analyzed 30-day admission to hospital or emergency department, and also examined 30-day all-cause mortality and incidence of colorectal cancer.

Among individuals in the older cohort, 515 of 7,627 patients (6.8%) experienced complications after colonoscopy compared with 795 of 30,443 patients (2.6%) in the screening-eligible cohort (P less than .001). Older age was an independent risk factor for postcolonoscopy complications, with individuals older than 75 years having twofold greater odds of complications after colonoscopy (odds ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-2.6) compared with individuals aged 50-74 years.

Other independent risk factors for complications included liver disease (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 3.5-6.5), heart failure (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.5-4.6), smoking history (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.4-4.3), obesity (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.2), chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0), cardiac arrhythmia (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.2), anemia (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.7), and hypertension (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5). Individuals who had previously undergone colonoscopy had a lower risk of complications after the procedure (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.7-1.0).

There was a significantly higher incidence of colorectal cancer treated with surgery in the older group (119 of 7,626; 1.6%) compared with the younger (144 of 30,443; 0.5%) group (P less than .001). Mortality from any cause was also significantly higher in the older group (20 patients; 0.2%) compared with the younger (39 patients; 0.1%) group (P less than .001).

“In accordance with our findings, the decision to perform colonoscopy should be considered carefully in older patients, particularly in the presence of comorbidities,” Dr. Causada-Calo and colleagues wrote.

Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, GI section chief at Minneapolis VA Health Care System and professor of medicine at University of Minnesota, said in an interview that screening colonoscopy in a population older than 75 years should be an individualized discussion with a patient who has minimal comorbidities, and the decision to move forward with a colonoscopy should be considered only if a patient’s life expectancy is at least 10 years.

“This study shows that diagnostic colonoscopy is associated with high risk of complications and quantifies the risk, to frame the discussion with the patient about going forward,” she said. “Colorectal cancers are slow growing. In individuals age 75 and older, competing health risks and risk of the colonoscopy often outweigh the small benefit they may derive. Older individuals should thus focus on other health priorities.”

Physicians should make their older patients aware that there is a risk for serious adverse events, including death, which increases after age 75. “[The] risk-benefit ratio for performing colonoscopy needs to carefully weighed,” Dr. Shaukat said. “[T]he patient should be presented with options, including the option of no screening.”

The American Cancer Society advocates “for individualized decision-making regarding screening for individuals after 75 but [does] not give any firm recommendations,” while the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force noted in its recommendations on colorectal cancer screening that the “harms are large and benefits are small” after 75 years of age, and choice to screen for colorectal cancer in that age group is an individual one, Dr. Shaukat said.

Robert A. Smith, PhD, senior vice president of cancer screening at the American Cancer Society, said in an interview that while colonoscopy is the dominant screening test for colorectal cancer, it is not known how often physicians and their older patients discuss noninvasive colorectal cancer screening methods. Noninvasive screening methods such as a high-sensitivity stool test should be a consideration even for older adults with mild chronic conditions, “especially if they have a history of screening with negative results,” he said. “[A] history of regular screening with normal test results should be a basis for considering cessation of screening after age 75, or at least transition to a test with lower risks of complications.”

Future research in this area could use a hybrid model of screening, such as using different tests among various age groups or risk groups, to see whether an invasive or noninvasive method would lower a complication rate, Dr. Smith said. “Further, we need to have a greater understanding of when individuals can confidently stop getting screened, based on their underlying risk and history of prior screening results,” he noted.

Dr. Shaukat said future studies should focus on randomized trials for individuals 75 years and older to assess the benefits and harms of screening, “[d]eveloping risk stratification tools that factor in an individual’s risk of colon cancer, their life expectancy, and guide individualized decision making to undergo screening.”

Dr. Armstrong is the chair of the National Colon Cancer Screening Network for the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer and the past president of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology. Dr. Albashir has received honoraria and speaker fees from Janssen, and grants from AbbVie and ATGen. Dr. Shaukat and Dr. Smith report no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Causada-Calo N et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(6):e208958.

Older adults, particularly postmenopausal women, are often advised to pursue low-impact, low-intensity exercise as a way to preserve joint health, but that approach might actually contribute to a decline in bone mineral density, researchers report.

Concerns about falls and fracture risk have led many clinicians to advise against higher-impact activities, like jumping, but that is exactly the type of activity that improves bone density and physical function, said Belinda Beck, PhD, professor at the Griffith University School of Allied Health Sciences in Southport, Australia.

“There has always been a quandary in terms of pursuing research on this,” she said in an interview. “We know from animal studies that bone only responds to high-intensity activity, but we worry about advising that for people with low bone mass, so instead we give them medications.”

“But not everyone likes to go on meds, they’re not 100% effective, and they’re not free of side effects,” said Beck, who is also the owner and director of The Bone Clinic in Brisbane, Australia.

In 2014, to assess whether high-intensity resistance and impact training (HiRIT) was a safe and effective way to improve bone mass, Beck and her colleagues conducted the LIFTMOR study of 101 postmenopausal women. The researchers showed that bone mineral density in the lumbar spine and femoral neck regions and functional performance measures were significantly better in the 49 participants randomized to HiRIT for 8 months than in the 52 randomized to low-intensity training.

Three years after the completion of LIFTMOR, the researchers looked at bone mineral density in 23 women from the HiRIT group in their retrospective observational study, the results of which were presented at the virtual American College of Sports Medicine 2020 Annual Meeting.

Ongoing gains were significantly better for the seven participants who continued with HiRIT (at least 25% compliance) than for the 16 who did not when looking at both bone mineral density of the lumbar spine (8.63% vs. 2.18%; P = .042) and femoral neck (3.67% vs. 2.85%; P = 0.14).

However, the women who discontinued HiRIT after 8 months maintained the gains in bone mineral density that they had achieved 3 years earlier.

Functional outcomes in the women who continued HiRIT were better than those in the women who did not, but the differences were not significant.

“The takeaway here is that this type of exercise appears to be a highly effective therapy to reduce risk of osteoporotic fracture, since it improves bone mass,” Beck said.

Jump more, lose less bone density

Given the widespread reluctance to suggest HiRIT-type activity to those with low bone mass, this research is significant, said Vanessa Yingling, PhD, from the Department of Kinesiology at California State University, East Bay.

“Once women hit 60, they’re somehow regarded as frail, but that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when we take this kinder, gentler approach to exercise,” Yingling said in an interview. “Building bone density in older adults is important, but maintaining current bone density is just as crucial. Without high-impact activity, we are likely to see decelerating density at a faster rate.”

The other key to the recent research is the functional testing, Yingling added. In addition to bone density measures, high-intensity activity can improve mobility and muscle strength, as the study noted.

This type of activity can be done in shorter bursts, making these workouts more efficient, she explained. For example, a Tabata high-intensity interval training session usually takes about 10 minutes, warm-up and cool-down included.

“A HiRIT workout even once or twice a week would likely improve function, strength, and bone density maintenance,” Beck said. “The result of that would be better fall prevention and potentially less medication usage for BMD issues.”

Both men and women can benefit from a HiRIT workout, Beck and Yingling said. Initially, supervision by a knowledgeable trainer or physical therapist is ideal, they added.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Older adults, particularly postmenopausal women, are often advised to pursue low-impact, low-intensity exercise as a way to preserve joint health, but that approach might actually contribute to a decline in bone mineral density, researchers report.

Concerns about falls and fracture risk have led many clinicians to advise against higher-impact activities, like jumping, but that is exactly the type of activity that improves bone density and physical function, said Belinda Beck, PhD, professor at the Griffith University School of Allied Health Sciences in Southport, Australia.

“There has always been a quandary in terms of pursuing research on this,” she said in an interview. “We know from animal studies that bone only responds to high-intensity activity, but we worry about advising that for people with low bone mass, so instead we give them medications.”

“But not everyone likes to go on meds, they’re not 100% effective, and they’re not free of side effects,” said Beck, who is also the owner and director of The Bone Clinic in Brisbane, Australia.

In 2014, to assess whether high-intensity resistance and impact training (HiRIT) was a safe and effective way to improve bone mass, Beck and her colleagues conducted the LIFTMOR study of 101 postmenopausal women. The researchers showed that bone mineral density in the lumbar spine and femoral neck regions and functional performance measures were significantly better in the 49 participants randomized to HiRIT for 8 months than in the 52 randomized to low-intensity training.

Three years after the completion of LIFTMOR, the researchers looked at bone mineral density in 23 women from the HiRIT group in their retrospective observational study, the results of which were presented at the virtual American College of Sports Medicine 2020 Annual Meeting.

Ongoing gains were significantly better for the seven participants who continued with HiRIT (at least 25% compliance) than for the 16 who did not when looking at both bone mineral density of the lumbar spine (8.63% vs. 2.18%; P = .042) and femoral neck (3.67% vs. 2.85%; P = 0.14).

However, the women who discontinued HiRIT after 8 months maintained the gains in bone mineral density that they had achieved 3 years earlier.

Functional outcomes in the women who continued HiRIT were better than those in the women who did not, but the differences were not significant.

“The takeaway here is that this type of exercise appears to be a highly effective therapy to reduce risk of osteoporotic fracture, since it improves bone mass,” Beck said.

Jump more, lose less bone density

Given the widespread reluctance to suggest HiRIT-type activity to those with low bone mass, this research is significant, said Vanessa Yingling, PhD, from the Department of Kinesiology at California State University, East Bay.

“Once women hit 60, they’re somehow regarded as frail, but that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when we take this kinder, gentler approach to exercise,” Yingling said in an interview. “Building bone density in older adults is important, but maintaining current bone density is just as crucial. Without high-impact activity, we are likely to see decelerating density at a faster rate.”

The other key to the recent research is the functional testing, Yingling added. In addition to bone density measures, high-intensity activity can improve mobility and muscle strength, as the study noted.

This type of activity can be done in shorter bursts, making these workouts more efficient, she explained. For example, a Tabata high-intensity interval training session usually takes about 10 minutes, warm-up and cool-down included.

“A HiRIT workout even once or twice a week would likely improve function, strength, and bone density maintenance,” Beck said. “The result of that would be better fall prevention and potentially less medication usage for BMD issues.”

Both men and women can benefit from a HiRIT workout, Beck and Yingling said. Initially, supervision by a knowledgeable trainer or physical therapist is ideal, they added.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Older adults, particularly postmenopausal women, are often advised to pursue low-impact, low-intensity exercise as a way to preserve joint health, but that approach might actually contribute to a decline in bone mineral density, researchers report.

Concerns about falls and fracture risk have led many clinicians to advise against higher-impact activities, like jumping, but that is exactly the type of activity that improves bone density and physical function, said Belinda Beck, PhD, professor at the Griffith University School of Allied Health Sciences in Southport, Australia.

“There has always been a quandary in terms of pursuing research on this,” she said in an interview. “We know from animal studies that bone only responds to high-intensity activity, but we worry about advising that for people with low bone mass, so instead we give them medications.”

“But not everyone likes to go on meds, they’re not 100% effective, and they’re not free of side effects,” said Beck, who is also the owner and director of The Bone Clinic in Brisbane, Australia.

In 2014, to assess whether high-intensity resistance and impact training (HiRIT) was a safe and effective way to improve bone mass, Beck and her colleagues conducted the LIFTMOR study of 101 postmenopausal women. The researchers showed that bone mineral density in the lumbar spine and femoral neck regions and functional performance measures were significantly better in the 49 participants randomized to HiRIT for 8 months than in the 52 randomized to low-intensity training.

Three years after the completion of LIFTMOR, the researchers looked at bone mineral density in 23 women from the HiRIT group in their retrospective observational study, the results of which were presented at the virtual American College of Sports Medicine 2020 Annual Meeting.

Ongoing gains were significantly better for the seven participants who continued with HiRIT (at least 25% compliance) than for the 16 who did not when looking at both bone mineral density of the lumbar spine (8.63% vs. 2.18%; P = .042) and femoral neck (3.67% vs. 2.85%; P = 0.14).

However, the women who discontinued HiRIT after 8 months maintained the gains in bone mineral density that they had achieved 3 years earlier.

Functional outcomes in the women who continued HiRIT were better than those in the women who did not, but the differences were not significant.

“The takeaway here is that this type of exercise appears to be a highly effective therapy to reduce risk of osteoporotic fracture, since it improves bone mass,” Beck said.

Jump more, lose less bone density

Given the widespread reluctance to suggest HiRIT-type activity to those with low bone mass, this research is significant, said Vanessa Yingling, PhD, from the Department of Kinesiology at California State University, East Bay.

“Once women hit 60, they’re somehow regarded as frail, but that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when we take this kinder, gentler approach to exercise,” Yingling said in an interview. “Building bone density in older adults is important, but maintaining current bone density is just as crucial. Without high-impact activity, we are likely to see decelerating density at a faster rate.”

The other key to the recent research is the functional testing, Yingling added. In addition to bone density measures, high-intensity activity can improve mobility and muscle strength, as the study noted.

This type of activity can be done in shorter bursts, making these workouts more efficient, she explained. For example, a Tabata high-intensity interval training session usually takes about 10 minutes, warm-up and cool-down included.

“A HiRIT workout even once or twice a week would likely improve function, strength, and bone density maintenance,” Beck said. “The result of that would be better fall prevention and potentially less medication usage for BMD issues.”

Both men and women can benefit from a HiRIT workout, Beck and Yingling said. Initially, supervision by a knowledgeable trainer or physical therapist is ideal, they added.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.