User login
Vitamin D fails to prevent late-life depression, boost mood
Findings from a large randomized, controlled trial do not support the use of vitamin D3 supplementation for adults for the sole purpose of preventing depression.
Among adults aged 50 years or older who were without clinically relevant depressive symptoms at baseline, vitamin D3 supplementation taken over 5 years did not reduce the risk for depression or make a difference in the quality of mood.
“The study is among the largest of its kind ever, and it was able to address whether vitamin D3 supplementation is useful for what we call ‘universal prevention’ of depression,” Olivia Okereke, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
“These results tell us that there is no benefit to using vitamin D3 supplements for the sole purpose of preventing depression in the general population of middle-aged and older adults,” said Dr. Okereke.
“Because of the high dose and long duration of treatment and the randomized placebo-controlled design, we can have high confidence in results,” she added.
The study was published online August 4 in JAMA.
The VITAL-DEP trial
The findings are based on 18,353 older adults (mean age, 67.5 years; 49% women) in the VITAL-DEP study; 16,657 were at risk for incident depression (ie, had no history of depression), and 1696 were at risk for recurrent depression (i.e., had a history of depression but had not undergone treatment for depression within the past 2 years).
Roughly half were randomly allocated to receive vitamin D3 (2000 IU/d of cholecalciferol) and half to receive matching placebo for a median of 5.3 years. The participants’ mean level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D was 31.1 ng/mL; for about 12%, levels were lower than 20 ng/mL.
The risk for depression or clinically relevant depressive symptoms (total of incident and recurrent cases) was not significantly different between the vitamin D3 group (609 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events; 12.9/1000 person-years) and the placebo group (625 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events; 13.3/1000 person-years). The hazard ratio was 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.09; P = .62).
“Cumulative incidence curves showed lack of separation between treatment groups over the entire follow-up,” the researchers report.
There was also no significant between-group difference in the other primary outcome – the mean difference in mood scores on the eight-item Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale (PHQ-8).
The mean difference for change between treatment groups in PHQ-8 scores was not significantly different from 0 over the entire follow-up (0.01 points; 95% CI, −0.04 to 0.05 points) or at any point during follow-up.
To date, 13 randomized clinical trials have examined the effects of vitamin D3 supplementation on depression or mood during middle age or in older adults, and all except one reported null findings, Dr. Okereke and colleagues noted in their article.
The current study is the only one large enough to examine vitamin D3 supplementation for the universal prevention of depression, they point out.
Although the findings do not support vitamin D3 supplementation for depression prevention, Dr. Okereke said, We also know that vitamin D is essential for bone health, and this study does not tell us whether vitamin D3 is useful for prevention of other health outcomes.”
VITAL-DEP was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. Pharmavite donated the vitamin D3, matching placebos, and packaging in the form of calendar packs. Dr. Okereke reported receiving royalties from Springer Publishing for a book on the prevention of late-life depression.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Findings from a large randomized, controlled trial do not support the use of vitamin D3 supplementation for adults for the sole purpose of preventing depression.
Among adults aged 50 years or older who were without clinically relevant depressive symptoms at baseline, vitamin D3 supplementation taken over 5 years did not reduce the risk for depression or make a difference in the quality of mood.
“The study is among the largest of its kind ever, and it was able to address whether vitamin D3 supplementation is useful for what we call ‘universal prevention’ of depression,” Olivia Okereke, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
“These results tell us that there is no benefit to using vitamin D3 supplements for the sole purpose of preventing depression in the general population of middle-aged and older adults,” said Dr. Okereke.
“Because of the high dose and long duration of treatment and the randomized placebo-controlled design, we can have high confidence in results,” she added.
The study was published online August 4 in JAMA.
The VITAL-DEP trial
The findings are based on 18,353 older adults (mean age, 67.5 years; 49% women) in the VITAL-DEP study; 16,657 were at risk for incident depression (ie, had no history of depression), and 1696 were at risk for recurrent depression (i.e., had a history of depression but had not undergone treatment for depression within the past 2 years).
Roughly half were randomly allocated to receive vitamin D3 (2000 IU/d of cholecalciferol) and half to receive matching placebo for a median of 5.3 years. The participants’ mean level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D was 31.1 ng/mL; for about 12%, levels were lower than 20 ng/mL.
The risk for depression or clinically relevant depressive symptoms (total of incident and recurrent cases) was not significantly different between the vitamin D3 group (609 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events; 12.9/1000 person-years) and the placebo group (625 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events; 13.3/1000 person-years). The hazard ratio was 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.09; P = .62).
“Cumulative incidence curves showed lack of separation between treatment groups over the entire follow-up,” the researchers report.
There was also no significant between-group difference in the other primary outcome – the mean difference in mood scores on the eight-item Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale (PHQ-8).
The mean difference for change between treatment groups in PHQ-8 scores was not significantly different from 0 over the entire follow-up (0.01 points; 95% CI, −0.04 to 0.05 points) or at any point during follow-up.
To date, 13 randomized clinical trials have examined the effects of vitamin D3 supplementation on depression or mood during middle age or in older adults, and all except one reported null findings, Dr. Okereke and colleagues noted in their article.
The current study is the only one large enough to examine vitamin D3 supplementation for the universal prevention of depression, they point out.
Although the findings do not support vitamin D3 supplementation for depression prevention, Dr. Okereke said, We also know that vitamin D is essential for bone health, and this study does not tell us whether vitamin D3 is useful for prevention of other health outcomes.”
VITAL-DEP was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. Pharmavite donated the vitamin D3, matching placebos, and packaging in the form of calendar packs. Dr. Okereke reported receiving royalties from Springer Publishing for a book on the prevention of late-life depression.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Findings from a large randomized, controlled trial do not support the use of vitamin D3 supplementation for adults for the sole purpose of preventing depression.
Among adults aged 50 years or older who were without clinically relevant depressive symptoms at baseline, vitamin D3 supplementation taken over 5 years did not reduce the risk for depression or make a difference in the quality of mood.
“The study is among the largest of its kind ever, and it was able to address whether vitamin D3 supplementation is useful for what we call ‘universal prevention’ of depression,” Olivia Okereke, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
“These results tell us that there is no benefit to using vitamin D3 supplements for the sole purpose of preventing depression in the general population of middle-aged and older adults,” said Dr. Okereke.
“Because of the high dose and long duration of treatment and the randomized placebo-controlled design, we can have high confidence in results,” she added.
The study was published online August 4 in JAMA.
The VITAL-DEP trial
The findings are based on 18,353 older adults (mean age, 67.5 years; 49% women) in the VITAL-DEP study; 16,657 were at risk for incident depression (ie, had no history of depression), and 1696 were at risk for recurrent depression (i.e., had a history of depression but had not undergone treatment for depression within the past 2 years).
Roughly half were randomly allocated to receive vitamin D3 (2000 IU/d of cholecalciferol) and half to receive matching placebo for a median of 5.3 years. The participants’ mean level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D was 31.1 ng/mL; for about 12%, levels were lower than 20 ng/mL.
The risk for depression or clinically relevant depressive symptoms (total of incident and recurrent cases) was not significantly different between the vitamin D3 group (609 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events; 12.9/1000 person-years) and the placebo group (625 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events; 13.3/1000 person-years). The hazard ratio was 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.09; P = .62).
“Cumulative incidence curves showed lack of separation between treatment groups over the entire follow-up,” the researchers report.
There was also no significant between-group difference in the other primary outcome – the mean difference in mood scores on the eight-item Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale (PHQ-8).
The mean difference for change between treatment groups in PHQ-8 scores was not significantly different from 0 over the entire follow-up (0.01 points; 95% CI, −0.04 to 0.05 points) or at any point during follow-up.
To date, 13 randomized clinical trials have examined the effects of vitamin D3 supplementation on depression or mood during middle age or in older adults, and all except one reported null findings, Dr. Okereke and colleagues noted in their article.
The current study is the only one large enough to examine vitamin D3 supplementation for the universal prevention of depression, they point out.
Although the findings do not support vitamin D3 supplementation for depression prevention, Dr. Okereke said, We also know that vitamin D is essential for bone health, and this study does not tell us whether vitamin D3 is useful for prevention of other health outcomes.”
VITAL-DEP was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. Pharmavite donated the vitamin D3, matching placebos, and packaging in the form of calendar packs. Dr. Okereke reported receiving royalties from Springer Publishing for a book on the prevention of late-life depression.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Flu and pneumonia vaccination tied to lower dementia risk
In a cohort study of more than 9,000 older adults, receiving a single influenza vaccination was associated with a 17% lower prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease compared with not receiving the vaccine. In addition, for those who were vaccinated more than once over the years, there was an additional 13% reduction in Alzheimer’s disease incidence.
In another study, which included more than 5,000 older participants, being vaccinated against pneumonia between the ages of 65 and 75 reduced the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease by 30%.
The subject of vaccines “is obviously very topical with the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association. “While these are very preliminary data, these studies do suggest that with vaccination against both respiratory illnesses, there is the potential to lower risk for developing cognitive decline and dementia,” said Dr. Edelmayer, who was not involved in the research.
The findings of both studies were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
Lower Alzheimer’s disease prevalence
The influenza vaccine study was presented by Albert Amran, a fourth-year medical student at McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. The researchers used electronic health record data to create a propensity-matched cohort of 9,066 vaccinated and unvaccinated adults ages 60 and older.
Influenza vaccination, increased frequency of administration, and younger age at time of vaccination were all associated with reduced incidence of Alzheimer’s disease, Mr. Amran reported.
Being vaccinated for influenza was significantly linked to a lower prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease (odds ratio [OR], 0.83; P < .0001) in comparison with not being vaccinated. Receiving more than one vaccination over the years was associated with an additional reduction in AD incidence (OR, 0.87; P = .0342). The protection appeared to be strongest for those who received their first vaccination at a younger age, for example, at age 60 versus 70.
Mr. Amran and research colleagues have two theories as to why influenza vaccination may protect the brain.
One is that vaccination may aid the immune system as people age. “As people get older, their immune systems become less able to control infection. We’ve seen this with the ongoing pandemic, with older people at much higher risk for dying. Giving people the vaccine once a year may help keep the immune system in shape,” Mr. Amran said.
Another theory is that the prevention of influenza itself may be relevant. “Flu infections can be extremely deadly in older patients. Maybe the results of our study will give another reason for people to get vaccinated,” Mr. Amran said.
Pneumonia vaccine
The other study was presented by Svetlana Ukraintseva, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Dr. Ukraintseva and colleagues investigated associations between pneumococcal vaccine, with and without an accompanying influenza vaccine, and the risk for Alzheimer’s disease among 5,146 participants in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Covariates included sex, race, birth cohort, education, smoking, and a known genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease: the rs2075650 G allele in the TOMM40 gene.
In a logistic model with all covariates, vaccination against pneumonia between ages 65 and 75 was significantly associated with reduced risk of developing AD (OR, 0.70; P < .04). The largest reduction in Alzheimer’s disease risk (OR, 0.62; P < .04) was among those vaccinated against pneumonia who were noncarriers of the rs2075650 G allele.
Total number of vaccinations against pneumonia and influenza between ages 65 and 75 was also associated with a lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease (OR, 0.88; P < .01). However, the effect was not evident for the influenza vaccination alone.
“The fact that very different pathogens – viral, bacterial, fungal – have been linked to Alzheimer’s disease indicates a possibility that compromised host immunity may play a role in Alzheimer’s disease through increasing overall brain’s vulnerability to various microbes,” said Dr. Ukraintseva.
The current findings support further investigation of pneumococcal vaccine as a “reasonable candidate for repurposing in personalized AD prevention,” she noted. “These results also support the important role of boosting overall immune robustness/resilience in preventing Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Ukraintseva added.
Her group is currently working on confirming the findings in another population.
Brain protective?
“Neither study can prove that the benefit is directly related to the vaccine itself, but what they can indicate is that potentially, vaccines are a way to protect your health and brain,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
In a statement, Maria Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that more research is needed.
The new data call “for further studies in large, diverse clinical trials to inform whether vaccinations as a public health strategy decrease our risk for developing dementia as we age,” Dr. Carillo said.
Funding for the influenza vaccine study was provided by the Christopher Sarofim Family Professorship in Biomedical Informatics and Bioengineering, a UT STARs Award, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, and the National Institutes of Health. Funding for the pneumonia study was provided by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Amran, Dr. Ukraintseva, Dr. Edelmayer, and Dr. Carrillo have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In a cohort study of more than 9,000 older adults, receiving a single influenza vaccination was associated with a 17% lower prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease compared with not receiving the vaccine. In addition, for those who were vaccinated more than once over the years, there was an additional 13% reduction in Alzheimer’s disease incidence.
In another study, which included more than 5,000 older participants, being vaccinated against pneumonia between the ages of 65 and 75 reduced the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease by 30%.
The subject of vaccines “is obviously very topical with the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association. “While these are very preliminary data, these studies do suggest that with vaccination against both respiratory illnesses, there is the potential to lower risk for developing cognitive decline and dementia,” said Dr. Edelmayer, who was not involved in the research.
The findings of both studies were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
Lower Alzheimer’s disease prevalence
The influenza vaccine study was presented by Albert Amran, a fourth-year medical student at McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. The researchers used electronic health record data to create a propensity-matched cohort of 9,066 vaccinated and unvaccinated adults ages 60 and older.
Influenza vaccination, increased frequency of administration, and younger age at time of vaccination were all associated with reduced incidence of Alzheimer’s disease, Mr. Amran reported.
Being vaccinated for influenza was significantly linked to a lower prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease (odds ratio [OR], 0.83; P < .0001) in comparison with not being vaccinated. Receiving more than one vaccination over the years was associated with an additional reduction in AD incidence (OR, 0.87; P = .0342). The protection appeared to be strongest for those who received their first vaccination at a younger age, for example, at age 60 versus 70.
Mr. Amran and research colleagues have two theories as to why influenza vaccination may protect the brain.
One is that vaccination may aid the immune system as people age. “As people get older, their immune systems become less able to control infection. We’ve seen this with the ongoing pandemic, with older people at much higher risk for dying. Giving people the vaccine once a year may help keep the immune system in shape,” Mr. Amran said.
Another theory is that the prevention of influenza itself may be relevant. “Flu infections can be extremely deadly in older patients. Maybe the results of our study will give another reason for people to get vaccinated,” Mr. Amran said.
Pneumonia vaccine
The other study was presented by Svetlana Ukraintseva, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Dr. Ukraintseva and colleagues investigated associations between pneumococcal vaccine, with and without an accompanying influenza vaccine, and the risk for Alzheimer’s disease among 5,146 participants in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Covariates included sex, race, birth cohort, education, smoking, and a known genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease: the rs2075650 G allele in the TOMM40 gene.
In a logistic model with all covariates, vaccination against pneumonia between ages 65 and 75 was significantly associated with reduced risk of developing AD (OR, 0.70; P < .04). The largest reduction in Alzheimer’s disease risk (OR, 0.62; P < .04) was among those vaccinated against pneumonia who were noncarriers of the rs2075650 G allele.
Total number of vaccinations against pneumonia and influenza between ages 65 and 75 was also associated with a lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease (OR, 0.88; P < .01). However, the effect was not evident for the influenza vaccination alone.
“The fact that very different pathogens – viral, bacterial, fungal – have been linked to Alzheimer’s disease indicates a possibility that compromised host immunity may play a role in Alzheimer’s disease through increasing overall brain’s vulnerability to various microbes,” said Dr. Ukraintseva.
The current findings support further investigation of pneumococcal vaccine as a “reasonable candidate for repurposing in personalized AD prevention,” she noted. “These results also support the important role of boosting overall immune robustness/resilience in preventing Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Ukraintseva added.
Her group is currently working on confirming the findings in another population.
Brain protective?
“Neither study can prove that the benefit is directly related to the vaccine itself, but what they can indicate is that potentially, vaccines are a way to protect your health and brain,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
In a statement, Maria Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that more research is needed.
The new data call “for further studies in large, diverse clinical trials to inform whether vaccinations as a public health strategy decrease our risk for developing dementia as we age,” Dr. Carillo said.
Funding for the influenza vaccine study was provided by the Christopher Sarofim Family Professorship in Biomedical Informatics and Bioengineering, a UT STARs Award, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, and the National Institutes of Health. Funding for the pneumonia study was provided by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Amran, Dr. Ukraintseva, Dr. Edelmayer, and Dr. Carrillo have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In a cohort study of more than 9,000 older adults, receiving a single influenza vaccination was associated with a 17% lower prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease compared with not receiving the vaccine. In addition, for those who were vaccinated more than once over the years, there was an additional 13% reduction in Alzheimer’s disease incidence.
In another study, which included more than 5,000 older participants, being vaccinated against pneumonia between the ages of 65 and 75 reduced the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease by 30%.
The subject of vaccines “is obviously very topical with the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association. “While these are very preliminary data, these studies do suggest that with vaccination against both respiratory illnesses, there is the potential to lower risk for developing cognitive decline and dementia,” said Dr. Edelmayer, who was not involved in the research.
The findings of both studies were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
Lower Alzheimer’s disease prevalence
The influenza vaccine study was presented by Albert Amran, a fourth-year medical student at McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. The researchers used electronic health record data to create a propensity-matched cohort of 9,066 vaccinated and unvaccinated adults ages 60 and older.
Influenza vaccination, increased frequency of administration, and younger age at time of vaccination were all associated with reduced incidence of Alzheimer’s disease, Mr. Amran reported.
Being vaccinated for influenza was significantly linked to a lower prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease (odds ratio [OR], 0.83; P < .0001) in comparison with not being vaccinated. Receiving more than one vaccination over the years was associated with an additional reduction in AD incidence (OR, 0.87; P = .0342). The protection appeared to be strongest for those who received their first vaccination at a younger age, for example, at age 60 versus 70.
Mr. Amran and research colleagues have two theories as to why influenza vaccination may protect the brain.
One is that vaccination may aid the immune system as people age. “As people get older, their immune systems become less able to control infection. We’ve seen this with the ongoing pandemic, with older people at much higher risk for dying. Giving people the vaccine once a year may help keep the immune system in shape,” Mr. Amran said.
Another theory is that the prevention of influenza itself may be relevant. “Flu infections can be extremely deadly in older patients. Maybe the results of our study will give another reason for people to get vaccinated,” Mr. Amran said.
Pneumonia vaccine
The other study was presented by Svetlana Ukraintseva, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Dr. Ukraintseva and colleagues investigated associations between pneumococcal vaccine, with and without an accompanying influenza vaccine, and the risk for Alzheimer’s disease among 5,146 participants in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Covariates included sex, race, birth cohort, education, smoking, and a known genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease: the rs2075650 G allele in the TOMM40 gene.
In a logistic model with all covariates, vaccination against pneumonia between ages 65 and 75 was significantly associated with reduced risk of developing AD (OR, 0.70; P < .04). The largest reduction in Alzheimer’s disease risk (OR, 0.62; P < .04) was among those vaccinated against pneumonia who were noncarriers of the rs2075650 G allele.
Total number of vaccinations against pneumonia and influenza between ages 65 and 75 was also associated with a lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease (OR, 0.88; P < .01). However, the effect was not evident for the influenza vaccination alone.
“The fact that very different pathogens – viral, bacterial, fungal – have been linked to Alzheimer’s disease indicates a possibility that compromised host immunity may play a role in Alzheimer’s disease through increasing overall brain’s vulnerability to various microbes,” said Dr. Ukraintseva.
The current findings support further investigation of pneumococcal vaccine as a “reasonable candidate for repurposing in personalized AD prevention,” she noted. “These results also support the important role of boosting overall immune robustness/resilience in preventing Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Ukraintseva added.
Her group is currently working on confirming the findings in another population.
Brain protective?
“Neither study can prove that the benefit is directly related to the vaccine itself, but what they can indicate is that potentially, vaccines are a way to protect your health and brain,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
In a statement, Maria Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that more research is needed.
The new data call “for further studies in large, diverse clinical trials to inform whether vaccinations as a public health strategy decrease our risk for developing dementia as we age,” Dr. Carillo said.
Funding for the influenza vaccine study was provided by the Christopher Sarofim Family Professorship in Biomedical Informatics and Bioengineering, a UT STARs Award, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, and the National Institutes of Health. Funding for the pneumonia study was provided by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Amran, Dr. Ukraintseva, Dr. Edelmayer, and Dr. Carrillo have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAIC 2020
NSAID continuation linked to less knee OA pain
in a randomized trial.
The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was 6.7 out of a possible total of 20 for patients who continued meloxicam for 4 weeks versus 7.8 in those who stopped and switched to a placebo. The estimated mean difference in pain score was 1.4 (P = .92 for noninferiority), which is below the threshold of 2.1 that is considered to be the minimum clinically important difference.
Furthermore, patients who had switched to placebo and then subsequently participated in a telephone-based cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) program for another 10 weeks had higher pain levels compared with those who continued meloxicam. WOMAC scores were 12.1 and 11.8, respectively with a mean difference of 0.8 (P = .28 for noninferiority).
“Among patients with knee osteoarthritis, placebo and CBT (after placebo) are inferior to meloxicam,” Liana Fraenkel, MD, MPH, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and coinvestigators concluded in their article, published in JAMA Internal Medicine.
They observed that the WOMAC pain score differences between the two groups were small, however, and that there were no statistically significant differences in participants’ global impression of change or function after 14 weeks.
“Although the overall results of the trial are negative, they provide clinicians with data to support shared decision-making and reassure patients willing to taper NSAIDs and consider self-management approaches such as CBT,” Dr. Fraenkel and coauthors suggested.
The Stopping NSAIDs for Arthritis Pain trial had ultimately included 364 participants, 86% of whom were men, recruited from four veterans affairs health care systems. All had been taking NSAIDs for knee OA pain for at least 3 months and had participated in a 2-week run-in period where the NSAID they had been taking was switched to meloxicam, 15 mg once daily.
The aim of the trial had been to see if discontinuing NSAIDs and starting a CBT program would be noninferior to continuing NSAIDs in patients with knee OA.
The trial does not provide robust information on the use of CBT, David Walsh, a rheumatologist and director of the Pain Centre Versus Arthritis at the University of Nottingham, England, said in an interview.
“It can’t tell you about efficacy of CBT,” Dr. Walsh said as the CBT part of the study was not randomized, was not controlled, and was unblinded. ”It would be a different task to design a CBT trial aiming to help people to stop taking tablets,” he added.
Dr. Fraenkel and coinvestigators had reported that, at week 14, the adjusted mean difference in WOMAC pain score between the placebo (followed by CBT) and meloxicam groups was 0.8 (P = .28 for noninferiority).
“What the trial’s really doing is seeing whether people who’ve been on long-term nonsteroidals, can they just stop them without getting any worse? The conclusion for that is actually they are more likely to get worse than not if you just stop the nonsteroidals,” Dr. Walsh said.
“The withdrawal trial protocol is an important one. You can’t run a prospective trial for years to see whether something works for years. It is just not feasible. So actually, the protocol they’ve got of switching to placebo, or continuing with a nonsteroidal, is probably the best way of working out if an anti-inflammatory still has a pharmacological effect after actually being on it for X years,” Dr. Walsh said.
Dr. Walsh, who was not involved in the trial, observed that while the difference in pain scores between the groups was small, the deterioration in scores might be important for individual patients. Some may do worse, although granted that there may be some that might do better, he said.
“It is suggesting to me that nonsteroidals are still working in people who are on long-term treatment. It is not a very big pharmacological effect, but we already know from the RCTs of anti-inflammatory tablets, that they can be beneficial,” Dr. Walsh noted.
He also pointed out that patients’ pain had been improved after being switched from their current NSAID to meloxicam – the overall WOMAC pain score at recruitment was 9.6 and was 5.6 after the 2-week meloxicam run-in phase.
“Now, whether that’s because they’ve been switched to meloxicam, or whether it’s because they’re in a trial,” is an important question, Dr. Walsh suggested, adding that “it looks as though it’s more likely to be because they’re in a trial, because improvement was maintained during the following 4 weeks on placebo.”
Another point he made was that there was a higher percentage of patients in the placebo group that started taking other types of painkillers, just under half (46%) used acetaminophen versus a quarter (26%) of those who continued using meloxicam.
It is an interesting trial, “trying to tackle some really difficult questions and I think that there are really important implications from it that we can build on, but is it actually going to change the lives of patients at the moment? Not massively,” Dr. Walsh said, ”but it’s another step in the right direction.”
Dr. Fraenkel disclosed receiving research funding from the VA Office of Research and Development, the sponsor of the trial.
SOURCE: Fraenkel L et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jul 20. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2821.
in a randomized trial.
The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was 6.7 out of a possible total of 20 for patients who continued meloxicam for 4 weeks versus 7.8 in those who stopped and switched to a placebo. The estimated mean difference in pain score was 1.4 (P = .92 for noninferiority), which is below the threshold of 2.1 that is considered to be the minimum clinically important difference.
Furthermore, patients who had switched to placebo and then subsequently participated in a telephone-based cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) program for another 10 weeks had higher pain levels compared with those who continued meloxicam. WOMAC scores were 12.1 and 11.8, respectively with a mean difference of 0.8 (P = .28 for noninferiority).
“Among patients with knee osteoarthritis, placebo and CBT (after placebo) are inferior to meloxicam,” Liana Fraenkel, MD, MPH, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and coinvestigators concluded in their article, published in JAMA Internal Medicine.
They observed that the WOMAC pain score differences between the two groups were small, however, and that there were no statistically significant differences in participants’ global impression of change or function after 14 weeks.
“Although the overall results of the trial are negative, they provide clinicians with data to support shared decision-making and reassure patients willing to taper NSAIDs and consider self-management approaches such as CBT,” Dr. Fraenkel and coauthors suggested.
The Stopping NSAIDs for Arthritis Pain trial had ultimately included 364 participants, 86% of whom were men, recruited from four veterans affairs health care systems. All had been taking NSAIDs for knee OA pain for at least 3 months and had participated in a 2-week run-in period where the NSAID they had been taking was switched to meloxicam, 15 mg once daily.
The aim of the trial had been to see if discontinuing NSAIDs and starting a CBT program would be noninferior to continuing NSAIDs in patients with knee OA.
The trial does not provide robust information on the use of CBT, David Walsh, a rheumatologist and director of the Pain Centre Versus Arthritis at the University of Nottingham, England, said in an interview.
“It can’t tell you about efficacy of CBT,” Dr. Walsh said as the CBT part of the study was not randomized, was not controlled, and was unblinded. ”It would be a different task to design a CBT trial aiming to help people to stop taking tablets,” he added.
Dr. Fraenkel and coinvestigators had reported that, at week 14, the adjusted mean difference in WOMAC pain score between the placebo (followed by CBT) and meloxicam groups was 0.8 (P = .28 for noninferiority).
“What the trial’s really doing is seeing whether people who’ve been on long-term nonsteroidals, can they just stop them without getting any worse? The conclusion for that is actually they are more likely to get worse than not if you just stop the nonsteroidals,” Dr. Walsh said.
“The withdrawal trial protocol is an important one. You can’t run a prospective trial for years to see whether something works for years. It is just not feasible. So actually, the protocol they’ve got of switching to placebo, or continuing with a nonsteroidal, is probably the best way of working out if an anti-inflammatory still has a pharmacological effect after actually being on it for X years,” Dr. Walsh said.
Dr. Walsh, who was not involved in the trial, observed that while the difference in pain scores between the groups was small, the deterioration in scores might be important for individual patients. Some may do worse, although granted that there may be some that might do better, he said.
“It is suggesting to me that nonsteroidals are still working in people who are on long-term treatment. It is not a very big pharmacological effect, but we already know from the RCTs of anti-inflammatory tablets, that they can be beneficial,” Dr. Walsh noted.
He also pointed out that patients’ pain had been improved after being switched from their current NSAID to meloxicam – the overall WOMAC pain score at recruitment was 9.6 and was 5.6 after the 2-week meloxicam run-in phase.
“Now, whether that’s because they’ve been switched to meloxicam, or whether it’s because they’re in a trial,” is an important question, Dr. Walsh suggested, adding that “it looks as though it’s more likely to be because they’re in a trial, because improvement was maintained during the following 4 weeks on placebo.”
Another point he made was that there was a higher percentage of patients in the placebo group that started taking other types of painkillers, just under half (46%) used acetaminophen versus a quarter (26%) of those who continued using meloxicam.
It is an interesting trial, “trying to tackle some really difficult questions and I think that there are really important implications from it that we can build on, but is it actually going to change the lives of patients at the moment? Not massively,” Dr. Walsh said, ”but it’s another step in the right direction.”
Dr. Fraenkel disclosed receiving research funding from the VA Office of Research and Development, the sponsor of the trial.
SOURCE: Fraenkel L et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jul 20. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2821.
in a randomized trial.
The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was 6.7 out of a possible total of 20 for patients who continued meloxicam for 4 weeks versus 7.8 in those who stopped and switched to a placebo. The estimated mean difference in pain score was 1.4 (P = .92 for noninferiority), which is below the threshold of 2.1 that is considered to be the minimum clinically important difference.
Furthermore, patients who had switched to placebo and then subsequently participated in a telephone-based cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) program for another 10 weeks had higher pain levels compared with those who continued meloxicam. WOMAC scores were 12.1 and 11.8, respectively with a mean difference of 0.8 (P = .28 for noninferiority).
“Among patients with knee osteoarthritis, placebo and CBT (after placebo) are inferior to meloxicam,” Liana Fraenkel, MD, MPH, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and coinvestigators concluded in their article, published in JAMA Internal Medicine.
They observed that the WOMAC pain score differences between the two groups were small, however, and that there were no statistically significant differences in participants’ global impression of change or function after 14 weeks.
“Although the overall results of the trial are negative, they provide clinicians with data to support shared decision-making and reassure patients willing to taper NSAIDs and consider self-management approaches such as CBT,” Dr. Fraenkel and coauthors suggested.
The Stopping NSAIDs for Arthritis Pain trial had ultimately included 364 participants, 86% of whom were men, recruited from four veterans affairs health care systems. All had been taking NSAIDs for knee OA pain for at least 3 months and had participated in a 2-week run-in period where the NSAID they had been taking was switched to meloxicam, 15 mg once daily.
The aim of the trial had been to see if discontinuing NSAIDs and starting a CBT program would be noninferior to continuing NSAIDs in patients with knee OA.
The trial does not provide robust information on the use of CBT, David Walsh, a rheumatologist and director of the Pain Centre Versus Arthritis at the University of Nottingham, England, said in an interview.
“It can’t tell you about efficacy of CBT,” Dr. Walsh said as the CBT part of the study was not randomized, was not controlled, and was unblinded. ”It would be a different task to design a CBT trial aiming to help people to stop taking tablets,” he added.
Dr. Fraenkel and coinvestigators had reported that, at week 14, the adjusted mean difference in WOMAC pain score between the placebo (followed by CBT) and meloxicam groups was 0.8 (P = .28 for noninferiority).
“What the trial’s really doing is seeing whether people who’ve been on long-term nonsteroidals, can they just stop them without getting any worse? The conclusion for that is actually they are more likely to get worse than not if you just stop the nonsteroidals,” Dr. Walsh said.
“The withdrawal trial protocol is an important one. You can’t run a prospective trial for years to see whether something works for years. It is just not feasible. So actually, the protocol they’ve got of switching to placebo, or continuing with a nonsteroidal, is probably the best way of working out if an anti-inflammatory still has a pharmacological effect after actually being on it for X years,” Dr. Walsh said.
Dr. Walsh, who was not involved in the trial, observed that while the difference in pain scores between the groups was small, the deterioration in scores might be important for individual patients. Some may do worse, although granted that there may be some that might do better, he said.
“It is suggesting to me that nonsteroidals are still working in people who are on long-term treatment. It is not a very big pharmacological effect, but we already know from the RCTs of anti-inflammatory tablets, that they can be beneficial,” Dr. Walsh noted.
He also pointed out that patients’ pain had been improved after being switched from their current NSAID to meloxicam – the overall WOMAC pain score at recruitment was 9.6 and was 5.6 after the 2-week meloxicam run-in phase.
“Now, whether that’s because they’ve been switched to meloxicam, or whether it’s because they’re in a trial,” is an important question, Dr. Walsh suggested, adding that “it looks as though it’s more likely to be because they’re in a trial, because improvement was maintained during the following 4 weeks on placebo.”
Another point he made was that there was a higher percentage of patients in the placebo group that started taking other types of painkillers, just under half (46%) used acetaminophen versus a quarter (26%) of those who continued using meloxicam.
It is an interesting trial, “trying to tackle some really difficult questions and I think that there are really important implications from it that we can build on, but is it actually going to change the lives of patients at the moment? Not massively,” Dr. Walsh said, ”but it’s another step in the right direction.”
Dr. Fraenkel disclosed receiving research funding from the VA Office of Research and Development, the sponsor of the trial.
SOURCE: Fraenkel L et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jul 20. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2821.
FROM JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE
An Advance Care Planning Video Program in Nursing Homes Did Not Reduce Hospital Transfer and Burdensome Treatment in Long-Stay Residents
Study Overview
Objective. To examine the effect of an advance care planning video intervention in nursing homes on resident outcomes of hospital transfer, burdensome treatment, and hospice enrollment.
Design. Pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.
Setting and participants. The study was conducted in 360 nursing homes located in 32 states across the United States. The facilities were owned by 2 for-profit nursing home chains; facilities with more than 50 beds were eligible to be included in the study. Facilities deemed by corporate leaders to have serious organizational problems or that lacked the ability to transfer electronic health records were excluded. The facilities, stratified by the primary outcome hospitalizations per 1000 person-days, were then randomized to intervention and control in a 1:2 ratio. Leaders from facilities in the intervention group received letters describing their selection to participate in the advance care planning video program, and all facilities invited agreed to participate. Participants (residents in nursing homes) were enrolled from February 1, 2016, to May 31, 2018. Each participant was followed for 12 months after enrollment. All residents living in intervention facilities were offered the opportunity to watch intervention videos. The target population of the study was residents with advanced illness, including advanced dementia or advanced cardiopulmonary disease, as defined by the Minimum Data Set (MDS) variables, who were aged 65 and older, were long-stay residents (100 days or more), and were enrolled as Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Secondary analysis included residents without advanced illness meeting other criteria.
Intervention. The intervention consisted of a selection of 5 short videos (6 to 10 minutes each), which had been previously developed and tested in smaller randomized trials. These videos cover the topics of general goals of care, goals of care for advanced dementia, hospice, hospitalization, and advance care planning for healthy patients, and use narration and images of typical treatments representing intensive medical care, basic medical care, and comfort care. The video for goals of care for advanced dementia targeted proxies of residents rather than residents themselves.
The implementation strategy for the video program included using a program manager to oversee the organization of the program’s rollout (a manager for each for-profit nursing home chain) and 2 champions at each facility (typically social workers were tasked with showing videos to patients and families). Champions received training from the study investigators and the manager and were asked to choose and offer selected videos to residents or proxies within 7 days of admission or readmission, every 6 months during a resident’s stay, and when specific decisions occurred, such as transition to hospice care, and on special occasions, such as out-of-town family visits.
Video offering and use were captured through documentation by a facility champion using a report tool embedded in the facility’s electronic health record. Champions met with the facility’s program manager and study team to review reports of video use, identify residents who had not been shown a video, and problem-solve on how to reach these residents. Facilities in the control group used their usual procedures for advance care planning.
Main outcome measures. Study outcomes included hospitalization transfers per 1000 person-days alive among long-stay residents with advanced illness (primary outcome); proportion of residents with at least 1 hospital transfer; proportion of residents with at least 1 burdensome treatment; and hospice enrollment (secondary outcomes). Secondary outcomes also included hospitalization transfers for long-stay residents without advanced illness. Hospital transfers were identified using Medicare claims for admissions, emergency department visits, and observation stays. Burdensome treatments were identified from Medicare claims and MDS, including tube feeding, parenteral therapy, invasive mechanical intervention, and intensive care unit admission. Fidelity to video intervention was measured by the proportion of residents offered the videos and the proportion of residents shown the videos at least once during the study period.
Main results. A total of 360 facilities were included in the study, 119 intervention and 241 control facilities. For the primary outcome, 4171 residents with advanced illness were included in the intervention group and 8308 residents with advanced illness were included in the control group. The average age was 83.6 years in both groups. In the intervention and control groups, respectively, 71.2% and 70.5% were female, 78.4% and 81.5% were White, 68.6% and 70.1% had advanced dementia at baseline, and 35.4% and 33.4% had advanced congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at baseline. Approximately 34% of residents received hospice care at baseline. In the intervention and control groups, 43.9% and 45.3% of residents died during follow-up, and the average length of follow-up in each group was 253.1 days and 252.6 days, respectively.
For the primary outcome of hospital transfers per 1000 person-days alive, there were 3.7 episodes (standard error 0.2) in the intervention group and 3.9 episodes in the control group (standard error 0.3); the difference was not statistically significant. For residents without advanced illness, there also was no difference in the hospital transfer rate. For other secondary outcomes, the proportion of residents in the intervention and control groups with 1 or more hospital transfer was 40.9% and 41.6%, respectively; the proportion with 1 or more burdensome treatment was 9.6% and 10.7%; and hospice enrollment was 24.9% and 25.5%. None of these differences was statistically significant. In the intervention group, 55.6% of residents or proxies were offered the video intervention and 21.9% were shown the videos at least once. There was substantial variability in the proportion of residents in the intervention group who were shown videos.
Conclusion. The advance planning video program did not lead to a reduction in hospital transfer, burdensome treatment, or changes in hospice enrollment. Acceptance of the intervention by residents was variable, and this may have contributed to the null finding.
Commentary
Nursing home residents often have advanced illness and limited functional ability. Hospital transfers may be burdensome and of limited clinical benefit for these patients, particularly for those with advanced illness and limited life expectancy, and are associated with markers of poor quality of end-of-life care, such as increased rates of stage IV decubitus ulcer and feeding-tube use towards the end of life.1 Advance care planning is associated with less aggressive care towards the end of life for persons with advanced illness,2 which ultimately improves the quality of end-of-life care for these individuals. Prior interventions to improve advance care planning have had variable effects, while video-based interventions to improve advance care planning have shown promise.3
This pragmatic randomized trial assessed the effect of an advance care planning video program on important clinical outcomes for nursing home residents, particularly those with advanced illness. The results, however, are disappointing, as the video intervention failed to improve hospital transfer rate and burdensome treatment in this population. The negative results could be attributed to the limited adoption of the video intervention in the study, as only 21.9% of residents in the intervention group were actually exposed to the intervention. What is not reported, and is difficult to assess, is whether the video intervention led to advance care planning, as would be demonstrated by advance directive documentation and acceptance of goals of care of comfort. A per-protocol analysis may be considered to demonstrate if there is an effect on residents who were exposed to the intervention. Nonetheless, the low adoption rate of the intervention may prompt further investigation of factors limiting adoption and perhaps lead to a redesigned trial aimed at enhancing adoption, with consideration of use of implementation trial designs.
As pointed out by the study investigators, other changes to nursing home practices, specifically on hospital transfer, likely occurred during the study period. A number of national initiatives to reduce unnecessary hospital transfer from nursing homes have been introduced, and a reduction in hospital transfers occurred between 2011 and 20174; these initiatives could have impacted staff priorities and adoption of the study intervention relative to other co-occurring initiatives.
Applications for Clinical Practice
The authors of this study reported negative trial results, but their findings highlight important issues in conducting trials in the nursing home setting. Additional demonstration of actual effect on advance care planning discussions and documentation will further enhance our understanding of whether the intervention, as tested, yields changes in practice on advance care planning in nursing homes. The pragmatic clinical trial design used in this study accounts for real-world settings, but may have limited the study’s ability to account for and adjust for differences in staff, settings, and other conditions and factors that may impact adoption of and fidelity to the intervention. Quality improvement approaches, such as INTERACT, have targeted unnecessary hospital transfers and may yield positive results.5 Quality improvement approaches like INTERACT allow for a high degree of adaptation to local procedures and settings, which in clinical trials is difficult to do. However, in a real-world setting, such approaches may be necessary to improve care.
–William W. Hung, MD, MPH
1. Gozalo P, Teno JM, Mitchell SL, et al. End-of-life transitions among nursing home residents with cognitive issues. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1212-1221
2. Nichols LH, Bynum J, Iwashyna TJ, et al. Advance directives and nursing home stays associated with less aggressive end-of-life care for patients with severe dementia. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33:667-674.
3. Volandes AE, Paasche-Orlow MK, Barry MJ, et al. Video decision support tool for advance care planning in dementia: randomized controlled trial. BMJ. 2009;338:b2159.
4. McCarthy EP, Ogarek JA, Loomer L, et al. Hospital transfer rates among US nursing home residents with advanced illness before and after initiatives to reduce hospitalizations. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180:385-394.
5. Rantz MJ, Popejoy L, Vogelsmeier, A et al. Successfully reducing hospitalizations of nursing home residents: results of the Missouri Quality Initiative. JAMA. 2017:18;960-966.
Study Overview
Objective. To examine the effect of an advance care planning video intervention in nursing homes on resident outcomes of hospital transfer, burdensome treatment, and hospice enrollment.
Design. Pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.
Setting and participants. The study was conducted in 360 nursing homes located in 32 states across the United States. The facilities were owned by 2 for-profit nursing home chains; facilities with more than 50 beds were eligible to be included in the study. Facilities deemed by corporate leaders to have serious organizational problems or that lacked the ability to transfer electronic health records were excluded. The facilities, stratified by the primary outcome hospitalizations per 1000 person-days, were then randomized to intervention and control in a 1:2 ratio. Leaders from facilities in the intervention group received letters describing their selection to participate in the advance care planning video program, and all facilities invited agreed to participate. Participants (residents in nursing homes) were enrolled from February 1, 2016, to May 31, 2018. Each participant was followed for 12 months after enrollment. All residents living in intervention facilities were offered the opportunity to watch intervention videos. The target population of the study was residents with advanced illness, including advanced dementia or advanced cardiopulmonary disease, as defined by the Minimum Data Set (MDS) variables, who were aged 65 and older, were long-stay residents (100 days or more), and were enrolled as Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Secondary analysis included residents without advanced illness meeting other criteria.
Intervention. The intervention consisted of a selection of 5 short videos (6 to 10 minutes each), which had been previously developed and tested in smaller randomized trials. These videos cover the topics of general goals of care, goals of care for advanced dementia, hospice, hospitalization, and advance care planning for healthy patients, and use narration and images of typical treatments representing intensive medical care, basic medical care, and comfort care. The video for goals of care for advanced dementia targeted proxies of residents rather than residents themselves.
The implementation strategy for the video program included using a program manager to oversee the organization of the program’s rollout (a manager for each for-profit nursing home chain) and 2 champions at each facility (typically social workers were tasked with showing videos to patients and families). Champions received training from the study investigators and the manager and were asked to choose and offer selected videos to residents or proxies within 7 days of admission or readmission, every 6 months during a resident’s stay, and when specific decisions occurred, such as transition to hospice care, and on special occasions, such as out-of-town family visits.
Video offering and use were captured through documentation by a facility champion using a report tool embedded in the facility’s electronic health record. Champions met with the facility’s program manager and study team to review reports of video use, identify residents who had not been shown a video, and problem-solve on how to reach these residents. Facilities in the control group used their usual procedures for advance care planning.
Main outcome measures. Study outcomes included hospitalization transfers per 1000 person-days alive among long-stay residents with advanced illness (primary outcome); proportion of residents with at least 1 hospital transfer; proportion of residents with at least 1 burdensome treatment; and hospice enrollment (secondary outcomes). Secondary outcomes also included hospitalization transfers for long-stay residents without advanced illness. Hospital transfers were identified using Medicare claims for admissions, emergency department visits, and observation stays. Burdensome treatments were identified from Medicare claims and MDS, including tube feeding, parenteral therapy, invasive mechanical intervention, and intensive care unit admission. Fidelity to video intervention was measured by the proportion of residents offered the videos and the proportion of residents shown the videos at least once during the study period.
Main results. A total of 360 facilities were included in the study, 119 intervention and 241 control facilities. For the primary outcome, 4171 residents with advanced illness were included in the intervention group and 8308 residents with advanced illness were included in the control group. The average age was 83.6 years in both groups. In the intervention and control groups, respectively, 71.2% and 70.5% were female, 78.4% and 81.5% were White, 68.6% and 70.1% had advanced dementia at baseline, and 35.4% and 33.4% had advanced congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at baseline. Approximately 34% of residents received hospice care at baseline. In the intervention and control groups, 43.9% and 45.3% of residents died during follow-up, and the average length of follow-up in each group was 253.1 days and 252.6 days, respectively.
For the primary outcome of hospital transfers per 1000 person-days alive, there were 3.7 episodes (standard error 0.2) in the intervention group and 3.9 episodes in the control group (standard error 0.3); the difference was not statistically significant. For residents without advanced illness, there also was no difference in the hospital transfer rate. For other secondary outcomes, the proportion of residents in the intervention and control groups with 1 or more hospital transfer was 40.9% and 41.6%, respectively; the proportion with 1 or more burdensome treatment was 9.6% and 10.7%; and hospice enrollment was 24.9% and 25.5%. None of these differences was statistically significant. In the intervention group, 55.6% of residents or proxies were offered the video intervention and 21.9% were shown the videos at least once. There was substantial variability in the proportion of residents in the intervention group who were shown videos.
Conclusion. The advance planning video program did not lead to a reduction in hospital transfer, burdensome treatment, or changes in hospice enrollment. Acceptance of the intervention by residents was variable, and this may have contributed to the null finding.
Commentary
Nursing home residents often have advanced illness and limited functional ability. Hospital transfers may be burdensome and of limited clinical benefit for these patients, particularly for those with advanced illness and limited life expectancy, and are associated with markers of poor quality of end-of-life care, such as increased rates of stage IV decubitus ulcer and feeding-tube use towards the end of life.1 Advance care planning is associated with less aggressive care towards the end of life for persons with advanced illness,2 which ultimately improves the quality of end-of-life care for these individuals. Prior interventions to improve advance care planning have had variable effects, while video-based interventions to improve advance care planning have shown promise.3
This pragmatic randomized trial assessed the effect of an advance care planning video program on important clinical outcomes for nursing home residents, particularly those with advanced illness. The results, however, are disappointing, as the video intervention failed to improve hospital transfer rate and burdensome treatment in this population. The negative results could be attributed to the limited adoption of the video intervention in the study, as only 21.9% of residents in the intervention group were actually exposed to the intervention. What is not reported, and is difficult to assess, is whether the video intervention led to advance care planning, as would be demonstrated by advance directive documentation and acceptance of goals of care of comfort. A per-protocol analysis may be considered to demonstrate if there is an effect on residents who were exposed to the intervention. Nonetheless, the low adoption rate of the intervention may prompt further investigation of factors limiting adoption and perhaps lead to a redesigned trial aimed at enhancing adoption, with consideration of use of implementation trial designs.
As pointed out by the study investigators, other changes to nursing home practices, specifically on hospital transfer, likely occurred during the study period. A number of national initiatives to reduce unnecessary hospital transfer from nursing homes have been introduced, and a reduction in hospital transfers occurred between 2011 and 20174; these initiatives could have impacted staff priorities and adoption of the study intervention relative to other co-occurring initiatives.
Applications for Clinical Practice
The authors of this study reported negative trial results, but their findings highlight important issues in conducting trials in the nursing home setting. Additional demonstration of actual effect on advance care planning discussions and documentation will further enhance our understanding of whether the intervention, as tested, yields changes in practice on advance care planning in nursing homes. The pragmatic clinical trial design used in this study accounts for real-world settings, but may have limited the study’s ability to account for and adjust for differences in staff, settings, and other conditions and factors that may impact adoption of and fidelity to the intervention. Quality improvement approaches, such as INTERACT, have targeted unnecessary hospital transfers and may yield positive results.5 Quality improvement approaches like INTERACT allow for a high degree of adaptation to local procedures and settings, which in clinical trials is difficult to do. However, in a real-world setting, such approaches may be necessary to improve care.
–William W. Hung, MD, MPH
Study Overview
Objective. To examine the effect of an advance care planning video intervention in nursing homes on resident outcomes of hospital transfer, burdensome treatment, and hospice enrollment.
Design. Pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.
Setting and participants. The study was conducted in 360 nursing homes located in 32 states across the United States. The facilities were owned by 2 for-profit nursing home chains; facilities with more than 50 beds were eligible to be included in the study. Facilities deemed by corporate leaders to have serious organizational problems or that lacked the ability to transfer electronic health records were excluded. The facilities, stratified by the primary outcome hospitalizations per 1000 person-days, were then randomized to intervention and control in a 1:2 ratio. Leaders from facilities in the intervention group received letters describing their selection to participate in the advance care planning video program, and all facilities invited agreed to participate. Participants (residents in nursing homes) were enrolled from February 1, 2016, to May 31, 2018. Each participant was followed for 12 months after enrollment. All residents living in intervention facilities were offered the opportunity to watch intervention videos. The target population of the study was residents with advanced illness, including advanced dementia or advanced cardiopulmonary disease, as defined by the Minimum Data Set (MDS) variables, who were aged 65 and older, were long-stay residents (100 days or more), and were enrolled as Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Secondary analysis included residents without advanced illness meeting other criteria.
Intervention. The intervention consisted of a selection of 5 short videos (6 to 10 minutes each), which had been previously developed and tested in smaller randomized trials. These videos cover the topics of general goals of care, goals of care for advanced dementia, hospice, hospitalization, and advance care planning for healthy patients, and use narration and images of typical treatments representing intensive medical care, basic medical care, and comfort care. The video for goals of care for advanced dementia targeted proxies of residents rather than residents themselves.
The implementation strategy for the video program included using a program manager to oversee the organization of the program’s rollout (a manager for each for-profit nursing home chain) and 2 champions at each facility (typically social workers were tasked with showing videos to patients and families). Champions received training from the study investigators and the manager and were asked to choose and offer selected videos to residents or proxies within 7 days of admission or readmission, every 6 months during a resident’s stay, and when specific decisions occurred, such as transition to hospice care, and on special occasions, such as out-of-town family visits.
Video offering and use were captured through documentation by a facility champion using a report tool embedded in the facility’s electronic health record. Champions met with the facility’s program manager and study team to review reports of video use, identify residents who had not been shown a video, and problem-solve on how to reach these residents. Facilities in the control group used their usual procedures for advance care planning.
Main outcome measures. Study outcomes included hospitalization transfers per 1000 person-days alive among long-stay residents with advanced illness (primary outcome); proportion of residents with at least 1 hospital transfer; proportion of residents with at least 1 burdensome treatment; and hospice enrollment (secondary outcomes). Secondary outcomes also included hospitalization transfers for long-stay residents without advanced illness. Hospital transfers were identified using Medicare claims for admissions, emergency department visits, and observation stays. Burdensome treatments were identified from Medicare claims and MDS, including tube feeding, parenteral therapy, invasive mechanical intervention, and intensive care unit admission. Fidelity to video intervention was measured by the proportion of residents offered the videos and the proportion of residents shown the videos at least once during the study period.
Main results. A total of 360 facilities were included in the study, 119 intervention and 241 control facilities. For the primary outcome, 4171 residents with advanced illness were included in the intervention group and 8308 residents with advanced illness were included in the control group. The average age was 83.6 years in both groups. In the intervention and control groups, respectively, 71.2% and 70.5% were female, 78.4% and 81.5% were White, 68.6% and 70.1% had advanced dementia at baseline, and 35.4% and 33.4% had advanced congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at baseline. Approximately 34% of residents received hospice care at baseline. In the intervention and control groups, 43.9% and 45.3% of residents died during follow-up, and the average length of follow-up in each group was 253.1 days and 252.6 days, respectively.
For the primary outcome of hospital transfers per 1000 person-days alive, there were 3.7 episodes (standard error 0.2) in the intervention group and 3.9 episodes in the control group (standard error 0.3); the difference was not statistically significant. For residents without advanced illness, there also was no difference in the hospital transfer rate. For other secondary outcomes, the proportion of residents in the intervention and control groups with 1 or more hospital transfer was 40.9% and 41.6%, respectively; the proportion with 1 or more burdensome treatment was 9.6% and 10.7%; and hospice enrollment was 24.9% and 25.5%. None of these differences was statistically significant. In the intervention group, 55.6% of residents or proxies were offered the video intervention and 21.9% were shown the videos at least once. There was substantial variability in the proportion of residents in the intervention group who were shown videos.
Conclusion. The advance planning video program did not lead to a reduction in hospital transfer, burdensome treatment, or changes in hospice enrollment. Acceptance of the intervention by residents was variable, and this may have contributed to the null finding.
Commentary
Nursing home residents often have advanced illness and limited functional ability. Hospital transfers may be burdensome and of limited clinical benefit for these patients, particularly for those with advanced illness and limited life expectancy, and are associated with markers of poor quality of end-of-life care, such as increased rates of stage IV decubitus ulcer and feeding-tube use towards the end of life.1 Advance care planning is associated with less aggressive care towards the end of life for persons with advanced illness,2 which ultimately improves the quality of end-of-life care for these individuals. Prior interventions to improve advance care planning have had variable effects, while video-based interventions to improve advance care planning have shown promise.3
This pragmatic randomized trial assessed the effect of an advance care planning video program on important clinical outcomes for nursing home residents, particularly those with advanced illness. The results, however, are disappointing, as the video intervention failed to improve hospital transfer rate and burdensome treatment in this population. The negative results could be attributed to the limited adoption of the video intervention in the study, as only 21.9% of residents in the intervention group were actually exposed to the intervention. What is not reported, and is difficult to assess, is whether the video intervention led to advance care planning, as would be demonstrated by advance directive documentation and acceptance of goals of care of comfort. A per-protocol analysis may be considered to demonstrate if there is an effect on residents who were exposed to the intervention. Nonetheless, the low adoption rate of the intervention may prompt further investigation of factors limiting adoption and perhaps lead to a redesigned trial aimed at enhancing adoption, with consideration of use of implementation trial designs.
As pointed out by the study investigators, other changes to nursing home practices, specifically on hospital transfer, likely occurred during the study period. A number of national initiatives to reduce unnecessary hospital transfer from nursing homes have been introduced, and a reduction in hospital transfers occurred between 2011 and 20174; these initiatives could have impacted staff priorities and adoption of the study intervention relative to other co-occurring initiatives.
Applications for Clinical Practice
The authors of this study reported negative trial results, but their findings highlight important issues in conducting trials in the nursing home setting. Additional demonstration of actual effect on advance care planning discussions and documentation will further enhance our understanding of whether the intervention, as tested, yields changes in practice on advance care planning in nursing homes. The pragmatic clinical trial design used in this study accounts for real-world settings, but may have limited the study’s ability to account for and adjust for differences in staff, settings, and other conditions and factors that may impact adoption of and fidelity to the intervention. Quality improvement approaches, such as INTERACT, have targeted unnecessary hospital transfers and may yield positive results.5 Quality improvement approaches like INTERACT allow for a high degree of adaptation to local procedures and settings, which in clinical trials is difficult to do. However, in a real-world setting, such approaches may be necessary to improve care.
–William W. Hung, MD, MPH
1. Gozalo P, Teno JM, Mitchell SL, et al. End-of-life transitions among nursing home residents with cognitive issues. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1212-1221
2. Nichols LH, Bynum J, Iwashyna TJ, et al. Advance directives and nursing home stays associated with less aggressive end-of-life care for patients with severe dementia. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33:667-674.
3. Volandes AE, Paasche-Orlow MK, Barry MJ, et al. Video decision support tool for advance care planning in dementia: randomized controlled trial. BMJ. 2009;338:b2159.
4. McCarthy EP, Ogarek JA, Loomer L, et al. Hospital transfer rates among US nursing home residents with advanced illness before and after initiatives to reduce hospitalizations. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180:385-394.
5. Rantz MJ, Popejoy L, Vogelsmeier, A et al. Successfully reducing hospitalizations of nursing home residents: results of the Missouri Quality Initiative. JAMA. 2017:18;960-966.
1. Gozalo P, Teno JM, Mitchell SL, et al. End-of-life transitions among nursing home residents with cognitive issues. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1212-1221
2. Nichols LH, Bynum J, Iwashyna TJ, et al. Advance directives and nursing home stays associated with less aggressive end-of-life care for patients with severe dementia. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33:667-674.
3. Volandes AE, Paasche-Orlow MK, Barry MJ, et al. Video decision support tool for advance care planning in dementia: randomized controlled trial. BMJ. 2009;338:b2159.
4. McCarthy EP, Ogarek JA, Loomer L, et al. Hospital transfer rates among US nursing home residents with advanced illness before and after initiatives to reduce hospitalizations. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180:385-394.
5. Rantz MJ, Popejoy L, Vogelsmeier, A et al. Successfully reducing hospitalizations of nursing home residents: results of the Missouri Quality Initiative. JAMA. 2017:18;960-966.
Delaying denosumab dose boosts risk for 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.
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.
a new study confirms. Physicians say they are especially concerned about the risk facing patients who are delaying the treatment during the coronavirus pandemic.
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.
a new study confirms. Physicians say they are especially concerned about the risk facing patients who are delaying the treatment during the coronavirus pandemic.
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.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Key clinical point: Patients with osteoporosis who delay denosumab doses are at much higher risk for vertebral fractures.
Major finding: Over 6 months, the risk of vertebral fractures grew from 2.2 in 1,000 (on-time doses) to 10.1 in 1,000 (delay of more than 16 weeks) – a hazard ratio of 3.91 (confidence interval, 1.62 to 9.45; P = .005).
Study details: Retrospective analysis of 2,594 patients in the U.K. 45 years or older who began taking denosumab between 2010 and 2019.
Disclosures: The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health China’s National Clinical Research Center for Orthopedics, Sports Medicine & Rehabilitation. The study authors report no relevant disclosures.
Source: Lyu H et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jul 28. doi: 10.7326/M20-0882.
Guidance addresses elders with diabetes during COVID-19
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.
Older adults often underestimate ability to prevent falls
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.
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.
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.
Cardiac CT scans can be used for osteoporosis screening
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.
FROM RADIOLOGY
About one-third of older Americans receive shingles vaccine
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.
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.
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.
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.
Primary prevention statins cut mortality even in the very elderly: VHA study
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.
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.
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.
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.