Geriatrics

Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a form of cognitive decline that involves a functional deterioration of activities of the nervous system, such as selective attention, vigilance, perception, learning, memory, executive function, verbal and language abilities, emotion, visuospatial and visuomotor skills. It occurs in the absence of cranial trauma or other brain injuries, and prevalence rates range from 36.6% in young adults to 42.4% in older adults, as a consequence of significant invasive procedures such as cardiac, noncardiac, and carotid surgeries that are lengthy and intensive.

Alzheimer’s disease (AD), the most common form of dementia, accounts for about two thirds of all cases of dementia globally. It is estimated that 41 million patients with dementia remain undiagnosed worldwide, and 25% of patients are diagnosed only when they are fully symptomatic. AD is a neurodegenerative disorder defined by neuropathologic changes, including beta-amyloid (Abeta) plaques composed of aggregated Abeta and neurofibrillary tangles containing aggregated tau proteins.

Patients with AD are unaware of their condition. Dementia, especially in its early stages, is often a hidden disease. Even when suspected, patients and families may believe that the symptoms are part of normal aging and may not report them to the doctor. In these patients, surgery may unmask subclinical dementia.

The complex correlation between POCD and AD has sparked debate following numerous anecdotal reports of how older adults undergoing surgical procedures may experience long-term cognitive decline with clinical characteristics such as those of patients with dementia. Despite advances in knowledge, it is still difficult to establish a priori how much surgery and anesthesia can increase the risk or accelerate the progression of a prodromal and asymptomatic AD condition (stages I-II) to clinically evident stage III AD. The current trend of an aging population poses a challenge for anesthesiology surgery because as the age of patients undergoing surgery increases, so does the likelihood of developing POCD.

Recent research in these fields has improved knowledge of the characteristics, epidemiology, risk factors, pathogenesis, and potential prevention strategies associated with POCD. It has improved the perspectives of future prevention and treatment.
 

Definition and Diagnostic Criteria

POCD, according to the cognitive impairment classification in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, is characterized by mild neurologic disturbance resulting from routine surgical procedures, excluding conditions such as deafness, dementia, or amnesia. The definition of POCD involves prolonged cognitive decline that can last for weeks, months, or even years. POCD may be confused with postoperative delirium, an acute and fluctuating disorder of consciousness that typically occurs within 3 days of surgery.

The diagnosis of POCD is based primarily on neurocognitive function scales. Widely used assessments include the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, the Wechsler Memory Scale, and the Mini-Mental State Examination.
 

Epidemiology

POCD is prevalent among patients undergoing cardiac or orthopedic surgery. In patients undergoing aortic-coronary bypass and cardiopulmonary bypass, 50%-70% develop POCD 1 week after surgery. In addition, 10%-30% experience long-term effects on cognitive function at 6 months after the procedure. In patients undergoing hip arthroplasty, 20%-50% exhibit POCD within 1 week of surgery, with 10%-14% still presenting it after 3 months.

Risk Factors

Age

POCD is typically observed in patients older than 65 years. However, after surgery, around 30% of younger patients and about 40% of older patients develop POCD at the time of hospital discharge. Specifically, 12.7% of older patients continue to have POCD 3 months after surgery, compared with 5% of younger patients.

Type of Surgery 

Hip and knee arthroplasty procedures entail a higher risk for POCD than general surgery. The same is true of cardiac surgery, especially aortic-coronary bypass and cardiopulmonary bypass.

Types of Anesthesia 

Initial assessments of postoperative cognitive function in cardiac surgery did not provide significant correlations between observed changes and the type of anesthesia because of the high number of confounding factors involved. A more recent meta-analysis of 28 randomized clinical trials concluded that the incidence of POCD is lower in surgeries using intravenous anesthesia with propofol than in those using inhalation anesthesia with isoflurane or sevoflurane.

Pain

Postoperative pain is a common issue, mainly resulting from substantial surgical trauma or potential wound infection. Patient-controlled postoperative analgesia independently increases the risk for POCD, compared with oral postoperative analgesia. Meta-analyses indicate that persistent pain can lead to a decline in patients’ cognitive abilities, attention, memory, and information processing.

Evolving Scenarios

Current research on POCD has deepened our understanding of its pathogenesis, implicating factors such as central nervous system inflammation, neuronal apoptosis, synaptic plasticity damage, abnormal tau protein modification, chronic pain, and mitochondrial metabolic disorders. Several neuroprotective drugs are currently under study, but none have shown consistent benefits for the prevention and treatment of POCD. The available evidence on the subject does not unambiguously guide the practicing physician. But neither does it exclude the importance of a careful assessment of POCD risk factors and the cognitive status of an older patient before surgery to provide useful information to the patient, family, and doctors when deciding on appropriate and shared procedures.

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

Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a form of cognitive decline that involves a functional deterioration of activities of the nervous system, such as selective attention, vigilance, perception, learning, memory, executive function, verbal and language abilities, emotion, visuospatial and visuomotor skills. It occurs in the absence of cranial trauma or other brain injuries, and prevalence rates range from 36.6% in young adults to 42.4% in older adults, as a consequence of significant invasive procedures such as cardiac, noncardiac, and carotid surgeries that are lengthy and intensive.

Alzheimer’s disease (AD), the most common form of dementia, accounts for about two thirds of all cases of dementia globally. It is estimated that 41 million patients with dementia remain undiagnosed worldwide, and 25% of patients are diagnosed only when they are fully symptomatic. AD is a neurodegenerative disorder defined by neuropathologic changes, including beta-amyloid (Abeta) plaques composed of aggregated Abeta and neurofibrillary tangles containing aggregated tau proteins.

Patients with AD are unaware of their condition. Dementia, especially in its early stages, is often a hidden disease. Even when suspected, patients and families may believe that the symptoms are part of normal aging and may not report them to the doctor. In these patients, surgery may unmask subclinical dementia.

The complex correlation between POCD and AD has sparked debate following numerous anecdotal reports of how older adults undergoing surgical procedures may experience long-term cognitive decline with clinical characteristics such as those of patients with dementia. Despite advances in knowledge, it is still difficult to establish a priori how much surgery and anesthesia can increase the risk or accelerate the progression of a prodromal and asymptomatic AD condition (stages I-II) to clinically evident stage III AD. The current trend of an aging population poses a challenge for anesthesiology surgery because as the age of patients undergoing surgery increases, so does the likelihood of developing POCD.

Recent research in these fields has improved knowledge of the characteristics, epidemiology, risk factors, pathogenesis, and potential prevention strategies associated with POCD. It has improved the perspectives of future prevention and treatment.
 

Definition and Diagnostic Criteria

POCD, according to the cognitive impairment classification in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, is characterized by mild neurologic disturbance resulting from routine surgical procedures, excluding conditions such as deafness, dementia, or amnesia. The definition of POCD involves prolonged cognitive decline that can last for weeks, months, or even years. POCD may be confused with postoperative delirium, an acute and fluctuating disorder of consciousness that typically occurs within 3 days of surgery.

The diagnosis of POCD is based primarily on neurocognitive function scales. Widely used assessments include the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, the Wechsler Memory Scale, and the Mini-Mental State Examination.
 

Epidemiology

POCD is prevalent among patients undergoing cardiac or orthopedic surgery. In patients undergoing aortic-coronary bypass and cardiopulmonary bypass, 50%-70% develop POCD 1 week after surgery. In addition, 10%-30% experience long-term effects on cognitive function at 6 months after the procedure. In patients undergoing hip arthroplasty, 20%-50% exhibit POCD within 1 week of surgery, with 10%-14% still presenting it after 3 months.

Risk Factors

Age

POCD is typically observed in patients older than 65 years. However, after surgery, around 30% of younger patients and about 40% of older patients develop POCD at the time of hospital discharge. Specifically, 12.7% of older patients continue to have POCD 3 months after surgery, compared with 5% of younger patients.

Type of Surgery 

Hip and knee arthroplasty procedures entail a higher risk for POCD than general surgery. The same is true of cardiac surgery, especially aortic-coronary bypass and cardiopulmonary bypass.

Types of Anesthesia 

Initial assessments of postoperative cognitive function in cardiac surgery did not provide significant correlations between observed changes and the type of anesthesia because of the high number of confounding factors involved. A more recent meta-analysis of 28 randomized clinical trials concluded that the incidence of POCD is lower in surgeries using intravenous anesthesia with propofol than in those using inhalation anesthesia with isoflurane or sevoflurane.

Pain

Postoperative pain is a common issue, mainly resulting from substantial surgical trauma or potential wound infection. Patient-controlled postoperative analgesia independently increases the risk for POCD, compared with oral postoperative analgesia. Meta-analyses indicate that persistent pain can lead to a decline in patients’ cognitive abilities, attention, memory, and information processing.

Evolving Scenarios

Current research on POCD has deepened our understanding of its pathogenesis, implicating factors such as central nervous system inflammation, neuronal apoptosis, synaptic plasticity damage, abnormal tau protein modification, chronic pain, and mitochondrial metabolic disorders. Several neuroprotective drugs are currently under study, but none have shown consistent benefits for the prevention and treatment of POCD. The available evidence on the subject does not unambiguously guide the practicing physician. But neither does it exclude the importance of a careful assessment of POCD risk factors and the cognitive status of an older patient before surgery to provide useful information to the patient, family, and doctors when deciding on appropriate and shared procedures.

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

Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a form of cognitive decline that involves a functional deterioration of activities of the nervous system, such as selective attention, vigilance, perception, learning, memory, executive function, verbal and language abilities, emotion, visuospatial and visuomotor skills. It occurs in the absence of cranial trauma or other brain injuries, and prevalence rates range from 36.6% in young adults to 42.4% in older adults, as a consequence of significant invasive procedures such as cardiac, noncardiac, and carotid surgeries that are lengthy and intensive.

Alzheimer’s disease (AD), the most common form of dementia, accounts for about two thirds of all cases of dementia globally. It is estimated that 41 million patients with dementia remain undiagnosed worldwide, and 25% of patients are diagnosed only when they are fully symptomatic. AD is a neurodegenerative disorder defined by neuropathologic changes, including beta-amyloid (Abeta) plaques composed of aggregated Abeta and neurofibrillary tangles containing aggregated tau proteins.

Patients with AD are unaware of their condition. Dementia, especially in its early stages, is often a hidden disease. Even when suspected, patients and families may believe that the symptoms are part of normal aging and may not report them to the doctor. In these patients, surgery may unmask subclinical dementia.

The complex correlation between POCD and AD has sparked debate following numerous anecdotal reports of how older adults undergoing surgical procedures may experience long-term cognitive decline with clinical characteristics such as those of patients with dementia. Despite advances in knowledge, it is still difficult to establish a priori how much surgery and anesthesia can increase the risk or accelerate the progression of a prodromal and asymptomatic AD condition (stages I-II) to clinically evident stage III AD. The current trend of an aging population poses a challenge for anesthesiology surgery because as the age of patients undergoing surgery increases, so does the likelihood of developing POCD.

Recent research in these fields has improved knowledge of the characteristics, epidemiology, risk factors, pathogenesis, and potential prevention strategies associated with POCD. It has improved the perspectives of future prevention and treatment.
 

Definition and Diagnostic Criteria

POCD, according to the cognitive impairment classification in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, is characterized by mild neurologic disturbance resulting from routine surgical procedures, excluding conditions such as deafness, dementia, or amnesia. The definition of POCD involves prolonged cognitive decline that can last for weeks, months, or even years. POCD may be confused with postoperative delirium, an acute and fluctuating disorder of consciousness that typically occurs within 3 days of surgery.

The diagnosis of POCD is based primarily on neurocognitive function scales. Widely used assessments include the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, the Wechsler Memory Scale, and the Mini-Mental State Examination.
 

Epidemiology

POCD is prevalent among patients undergoing cardiac or orthopedic surgery. In patients undergoing aortic-coronary bypass and cardiopulmonary bypass, 50%-70% develop POCD 1 week after surgery. In addition, 10%-30% experience long-term effects on cognitive function at 6 months after the procedure. In patients undergoing hip arthroplasty, 20%-50% exhibit POCD within 1 week of surgery, with 10%-14% still presenting it after 3 months.

Risk Factors

Age

POCD is typically observed in patients older than 65 years. However, after surgery, around 30% of younger patients and about 40% of older patients develop POCD at the time of hospital discharge. Specifically, 12.7% of older patients continue to have POCD 3 months after surgery, compared with 5% of younger patients.

Type of Surgery 

Hip and knee arthroplasty procedures entail a higher risk for POCD than general surgery. The same is true of cardiac surgery, especially aortic-coronary bypass and cardiopulmonary bypass.

Types of Anesthesia 

Initial assessments of postoperative cognitive function in cardiac surgery did not provide significant correlations between observed changes and the type of anesthesia because of the high number of confounding factors involved. A more recent meta-analysis of 28 randomized clinical trials concluded that the incidence of POCD is lower in surgeries using intravenous anesthesia with propofol than in those using inhalation anesthesia with isoflurane or sevoflurane.

Pain

Postoperative pain is a common issue, mainly resulting from substantial surgical trauma or potential wound infection. Patient-controlled postoperative analgesia independently increases the risk for POCD, compared with oral postoperative analgesia. Meta-analyses indicate that persistent pain can lead to a decline in patients’ cognitive abilities, attention, memory, and information processing.

Evolving Scenarios

Current research on POCD has deepened our understanding of its pathogenesis, implicating factors such as central nervous system inflammation, neuronal apoptosis, synaptic plasticity damage, abnormal tau protein modification, chronic pain, and mitochondrial metabolic disorders. Several neuroprotective drugs are currently under study, but none have shown consistent benefits for the prevention and treatment of POCD. The available evidence on the subject does not unambiguously guide the practicing physician. But neither does it exclude the importance of a careful assessment of POCD risk factors and the cognitive status of an older patient before surgery to provide useful information to the patient, family, and doctors when deciding on appropriate and shared procedures.

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

A more definitive picture of how some hormones and moisturizers can offer relief to women experiencing vaginal dryness or painful intercourse during menopause was published in a recent systematic review in Annals of Internal Medicine. However, researchers noted scant long-term data on the safety of these products.

Vaginal dryness and challenges with intercourse and urination are among the symptoms of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). Hormones such as vaginal estrogen, vaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), or oral ospemifene are common treatments, along with moisturizers.

“The main finding is that commonly used therapies are likely to be effective for the common symptoms people have for GSM,” particularly vaginal dryness and painful intercourse, said Elisheva Danan, MD, MPH, a primary care physician and health services researcher at the Minneapolis VA Health Care System and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, who was the lead study author.

Many women might recognize hot flashes as connected to menopause, Dr. Danan said, as these tend to occur with the cessation of the menstrual cycle. However, genitourinary effects may not manifest until a few years later and worsen over time, when the connection to menopause is less clear.

“Women might not bring it up or think there’s a treatment that can work,” Dr. Danan said.

The systematic review may provide clinicians with more evidence of specific treatments to recommend. However, most of the trials included in the analysis studied treatment periods of 12 weeks or less, so the safety of long-term use is unclear.

“One question that hasn’t been answered yet in clinical trials is whether there could be a risk of uterine cancer with extended use of any of these treatments,” Dr. Danan said, because vaginal estrogen or ospemifene could stimulate growth of the uterine lining.

The studies Dr. Danan and colleagues found showed no increased risk for uterine cancer, but Dr, Danan noted that the maximum follow-up was 1 year, and study participants had a low risk for cancer to begin with. She advised that clinicians closely monitor women with risk factors if they use hormones to treat GSM indefinitely.
 

Forty-Six Randomized Controlled Trials, Many Open Questions

Dr. Danan and her colleagues conducted a systematic review of 46 randomized controlled trials, meant to inform an upcoming clinical practice guideline from the American Urological Association on treatment of GSM. Dr. Danan’s work was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Studies evaluated vaginal estrogen (22), other hormones such as vaginal oxytocin or vaginal testosterone (16), vaginal moisturizers (4), and multiple interventions (4).

Included trials lasted at least 8 weeks and included at least 20 postmenopausal women; most treatments lasted 12 weeks or less. Studies used varying definitions of GSM, and no head-to-head trials of different treatments were found.

Researchers used the Core Outcomes in Menopause (COMMA) framework, developed in 2021 to standardize outcomes research in menopause care and to understand treatment effectiveness. They applied this framework retroactively, as almost all the studies in the review were written before the COMMA framework existed.

Hormonal treatments were associated with reduced pain during intercourse and decreased vaginal dryness; moisturizers were linked to reduced dryness.

Vaginal estrogen did not reduce pain during intercourse as consistently as DHEA or oral ospemifene, per the review. Dr. Danan and her coauthors said this could be because the DHEA and ospemifene trials were larger and more uniformly conducted than those for vaginal estrogen. Even so, vaginal estrogen outperformed placebo at reducing painful intercourse.

But given the short timeframe of most studies and the differing definitions of GSM symptoms, Dr. Danan cautioned that all their conclusions have low certainty.

Few studies examined whether these treatments reduced vaginal itchiness or difficulties with urination. And the authors found no evidence for the benefit of oral DHEA, raloxifene, bazedoxifene, vaginal oxytocin, or vaginal testosterone for GSM treatment.

In an accompanying report, the researchers found no evidence for the benefits of treatments such as vaginal testosterone or vaginal laser therapy.

Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, medical director for the North American Menopause Society and director of the Mayo Clinic Center for Women’s Health, Rochester, Minnesota, wrote an accompanying editorial noting that the patients represented in the GSM treatment clinical trials were not diverse and that the exclusion criteria generally meant that women with cardiovascular challenges or cancer were not included.

“That’s one of the biggest questions — what is the safety in women with cardiovascular risk factors or history of a blood clot or history of a cancer? The data is just completely absent there,” Dr. Faubion said.
 

The Connection Between GSM and Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs)

“Genitourinary syndrome of menopause is not just a little bit of vaginal dryness that can be cured with moisturizers and lubricants, but the syndrome can lead to recurrent urinary tract infections, which are extremely harmful and dangerous to our patients and cost the healthcare system a lot of money,” said Rachel Rubin, MD, a urologist and sexual medicine specialist in Bethesda, Maryland.

Lubricants and moisturizers can all help with the symptoms of GSM, at least in the short term, Dr. Rubin noted. But only hormones can get to the root of the problem and reduce the risk for a recurrent UTI (rUTI), Dr. Rubin added, noting that the American Urological Association recommends the use of vaginal estrogen to reduce the risk for rUTIs and is developing the clinical practice guidelines for GSM.

Dr. Danan’s review did not address the association between UTIs and GSM, but Dr. Rubin said she sees the link in clinical practice.

“Recurrent urinary tract infections occur because of GSM, because of the lack of hormones to the tissue,” sometimes when a woman is in her 60s or 70s and thinks menopause is long over, Dr. Rubin said.

The reality is that women may need to take hormones for decades to reduce the risk for UTIs, another reason longer-term safety data are needed, Dr. Rubin said.

Dr. Danan, Dr. Faubion, and Dr. Rubin reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A more definitive picture of how some hormones and moisturizers can offer relief to women experiencing vaginal dryness or painful intercourse during menopause was published in a recent systematic review in Annals of Internal Medicine. However, researchers noted scant long-term data on the safety of these products.

Vaginal dryness and challenges with intercourse and urination are among the symptoms of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). Hormones such as vaginal estrogen, vaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), or oral ospemifene are common treatments, along with moisturizers.

“The main finding is that commonly used therapies are likely to be effective for the common symptoms people have for GSM,” particularly vaginal dryness and painful intercourse, said Elisheva Danan, MD, MPH, a primary care physician and health services researcher at the Minneapolis VA Health Care System and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, who was the lead study author.

Many women might recognize hot flashes as connected to menopause, Dr. Danan said, as these tend to occur with the cessation of the menstrual cycle. However, genitourinary effects may not manifest until a few years later and worsen over time, when the connection to menopause is less clear.

“Women might not bring it up or think there’s a treatment that can work,” Dr. Danan said.

The systematic review may provide clinicians with more evidence of specific treatments to recommend. However, most of the trials included in the analysis studied treatment periods of 12 weeks or less, so the safety of long-term use is unclear.

“One question that hasn’t been answered yet in clinical trials is whether there could be a risk of uterine cancer with extended use of any of these treatments,” Dr. Danan said, because vaginal estrogen or ospemifene could stimulate growth of the uterine lining.

The studies Dr. Danan and colleagues found showed no increased risk for uterine cancer, but Dr, Danan noted that the maximum follow-up was 1 year, and study participants had a low risk for cancer to begin with. She advised that clinicians closely monitor women with risk factors if they use hormones to treat GSM indefinitely.
 

Forty-Six Randomized Controlled Trials, Many Open Questions

Dr. Danan and her colleagues conducted a systematic review of 46 randomized controlled trials, meant to inform an upcoming clinical practice guideline from the American Urological Association on treatment of GSM. Dr. Danan’s work was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Studies evaluated vaginal estrogen (22), other hormones such as vaginal oxytocin or vaginal testosterone (16), vaginal moisturizers (4), and multiple interventions (4).

Included trials lasted at least 8 weeks and included at least 20 postmenopausal women; most treatments lasted 12 weeks or less. Studies used varying definitions of GSM, and no head-to-head trials of different treatments were found.

Researchers used the Core Outcomes in Menopause (COMMA) framework, developed in 2021 to standardize outcomes research in menopause care and to understand treatment effectiveness. They applied this framework retroactively, as almost all the studies in the review were written before the COMMA framework existed.

Hormonal treatments were associated with reduced pain during intercourse and decreased vaginal dryness; moisturizers were linked to reduced dryness.

Vaginal estrogen did not reduce pain during intercourse as consistently as DHEA or oral ospemifene, per the review. Dr. Danan and her coauthors said this could be because the DHEA and ospemifene trials were larger and more uniformly conducted than those for vaginal estrogen. Even so, vaginal estrogen outperformed placebo at reducing painful intercourse.

But given the short timeframe of most studies and the differing definitions of GSM symptoms, Dr. Danan cautioned that all their conclusions have low certainty.

Few studies examined whether these treatments reduced vaginal itchiness or difficulties with urination. And the authors found no evidence for the benefit of oral DHEA, raloxifene, bazedoxifene, vaginal oxytocin, or vaginal testosterone for GSM treatment.

In an accompanying report, the researchers found no evidence for the benefits of treatments such as vaginal testosterone or vaginal laser therapy.

Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, medical director for the North American Menopause Society and director of the Mayo Clinic Center for Women’s Health, Rochester, Minnesota, wrote an accompanying editorial noting that the patients represented in the GSM treatment clinical trials were not diverse and that the exclusion criteria generally meant that women with cardiovascular challenges or cancer were not included.

“That’s one of the biggest questions — what is the safety in women with cardiovascular risk factors or history of a blood clot or history of a cancer? The data is just completely absent there,” Dr. Faubion said.
 

The Connection Between GSM and Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs)

“Genitourinary syndrome of menopause is not just a little bit of vaginal dryness that can be cured with moisturizers and lubricants, but the syndrome can lead to recurrent urinary tract infections, which are extremely harmful and dangerous to our patients and cost the healthcare system a lot of money,” said Rachel Rubin, MD, a urologist and sexual medicine specialist in Bethesda, Maryland.

Lubricants and moisturizers can all help with the symptoms of GSM, at least in the short term, Dr. Rubin noted. But only hormones can get to the root of the problem and reduce the risk for a recurrent UTI (rUTI), Dr. Rubin added, noting that the American Urological Association recommends the use of vaginal estrogen to reduce the risk for rUTIs and is developing the clinical practice guidelines for GSM.

Dr. Danan’s review did not address the association between UTIs and GSM, but Dr. Rubin said she sees the link in clinical practice.

“Recurrent urinary tract infections occur because of GSM, because of the lack of hormones to the tissue,” sometimes when a woman is in her 60s or 70s and thinks menopause is long over, Dr. Rubin said.

The reality is that women may need to take hormones for decades to reduce the risk for UTIs, another reason longer-term safety data are needed, Dr. Rubin said.

Dr. Danan, Dr. Faubion, and Dr. Rubin reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A more definitive picture of how some hormones and moisturizers can offer relief to women experiencing vaginal dryness or painful intercourse during menopause was published in a recent systematic review in Annals of Internal Medicine. However, researchers noted scant long-term data on the safety of these products.

Vaginal dryness and challenges with intercourse and urination are among the symptoms of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). Hormones such as vaginal estrogen, vaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), or oral ospemifene are common treatments, along with moisturizers.

“The main finding is that commonly used therapies are likely to be effective for the common symptoms people have for GSM,” particularly vaginal dryness and painful intercourse, said Elisheva Danan, MD, MPH, a primary care physician and health services researcher at the Minneapolis VA Health Care System and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, who was the lead study author.

Many women might recognize hot flashes as connected to menopause, Dr. Danan said, as these tend to occur with the cessation of the menstrual cycle. However, genitourinary effects may not manifest until a few years later and worsen over time, when the connection to menopause is less clear.

“Women might not bring it up or think there’s a treatment that can work,” Dr. Danan said.

The systematic review may provide clinicians with more evidence of specific treatments to recommend. However, most of the trials included in the analysis studied treatment periods of 12 weeks or less, so the safety of long-term use is unclear.

“One question that hasn’t been answered yet in clinical trials is whether there could be a risk of uterine cancer with extended use of any of these treatments,” Dr. Danan said, because vaginal estrogen or ospemifene could stimulate growth of the uterine lining.

The studies Dr. Danan and colleagues found showed no increased risk for uterine cancer, but Dr, Danan noted that the maximum follow-up was 1 year, and study participants had a low risk for cancer to begin with. She advised that clinicians closely monitor women with risk factors if they use hormones to treat GSM indefinitely.
 

Forty-Six Randomized Controlled Trials, Many Open Questions

Dr. Danan and her colleagues conducted a systematic review of 46 randomized controlled trials, meant to inform an upcoming clinical practice guideline from the American Urological Association on treatment of GSM. Dr. Danan’s work was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Studies evaluated vaginal estrogen (22), other hormones such as vaginal oxytocin or vaginal testosterone (16), vaginal moisturizers (4), and multiple interventions (4).

Included trials lasted at least 8 weeks and included at least 20 postmenopausal women; most treatments lasted 12 weeks or less. Studies used varying definitions of GSM, and no head-to-head trials of different treatments were found.

Researchers used the Core Outcomes in Menopause (COMMA) framework, developed in 2021 to standardize outcomes research in menopause care and to understand treatment effectiveness. They applied this framework retroactively, as almost all the studies in the review were written before the COMMA framework existed.

Hormonal treatments were associated with reduced pain during intercourse and decreased vaginal dryness; moisturizers were linked to reduced dryness.

Vaginal estrogen did not reduce pain during intercourse as consistently as DHEA or oral ospemifene, per the review. Dr. Danan and her coauthors said this could be because the DHEA and ospemifene trials were larger and more uniformly conducted than those for vaginal estrogen. Even so, vaginal estrogen outperformed placebo at reducing painful intercourse.

But given the short timeframe of most studies and the differing definitions of GSM symptoms, Dr. Danan cautioned that all their conclusions have low certainty.

Few studies examined whether these treatments reduced vaginal itchiness or difficulties with urination. And the authors found no evidence for the benefit of oral DHEA, raloxifene, bazedoxifene, vaginal oxytocin, or vaginal testosterone for GSM treatment.

In an accompanying report, the researchers found no evidence for the benefits of treatments such as vaginal testosterone or vaginal laser therapy.

Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, medical director for the North American Menopause Society and director of the Mayo Clinic Center for Women’s Health, Rochester, Minnesota, wrote an accompanying editorial noting that the patients represented in the GSM treatment clinical trials were not diverse and that the exclusion criteria generally meant that women with cardiovascular challenges or cancer were not included.

“That’s one of the biggest questions — what is the safety in women with cardiovascular risk factors or history of a blood clot or history of a cancer? The data is just completely absent there,” Dr. Faubion said.
 

The Connection Between GSM and Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs)

“Genitourinary syndrome of menopause is not just a little bit of vaginal dryness that can be cured with moisturizers and lubricants, but the syndrome can lead to recurrent urinary tract infections, which are extremely harmful and dangerous to our patients and cost the healthcare system a lot of money,” said Rachel Rubin, MD, a urologist and sexual medicine specialist in Bethesda, Maryland.

Lubricants and moisturizers can all help with the symptoms of GSM, at least in the short term, Dr. Rubin noted. But only hormones can get to the root of the problem and reduce the risk for a recurrent UTI (rUTI), Dr. Rubin added, noting that the American Urological Association recommends the use of vaginal estrogen to reduce the risk for rUTIs and is developing the clinical practice guidelines for GSM.

Dr. Danan’s review did not address the association between UTIs and GSM, but Dr. Rubin said she sees the link in clinical practice.

“Recurrent urinary tract infections occur because of GSM, because of the lack of hormones to the tissue,” sometimes when a woman is in her 60s or 70s and thinks menopause is long over, Dr. Rubin said.

The reality is that women may need to take hormones for decades to reduce the risk for UTIs, another reason longer-term safety data are needed, Dr. Rubin said.

Dr. Danan, Dr. Faubion, and Dr. Rubin reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

The likelihood of receiving a dementia diagnosis in older adults varies significantly by region across the United States, a new study suggests. Rates ranged from 1.7% to 5.4%, with variations more pronounced in those aged 66-74 years and Black or Hispanic individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed newly diagnosed cases of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) using the 2018-2019 Medicare claims data for 4.8 million older adults across 306 hospital referral regions (HRRs).
• Participants were categorized by age and race or ethnicity to examine variations in diagnosis rates.
• Regional characteristics such as education level and prevalence of obesity, smoking, and diabetes were included to adjust for population risk factors.
• ADRD-specific diagnostic intensity was calculated as the ratio of the observed-to-expected new cases of ADRD in each HRR.

TAKEAWAY:

• Unadjusted analysis for that overall, 3% of older adults received a new ADRD diagnosis in 2019, with rates ranging from 1.7 to 5.4 per 100 individuals across HRRs and varied by age category.
• Regions in the South had the highest unadjusted ADRD case concentration, and the areas in the West/Northwest had the lowest.
• The ADRD-specific diagnosis intensity was 0.69-1.47 and varied the most in Black and Hispanic individuals and those aged 66-74 years.
• Regional differences in ADRD diagnosis rates are not fully explained by population risk factors, indicating potential health system-level differences.

IN PRACTICE:

“From place to place, the likelihood of getting your dementia diagnosed varies, and that may happen because of everything from practice norms for healthcare providers to individual patients’ knowledge and care-seeking behavior. These findings go beyond demographic and population-level differences in risk and indicate that there are health system-level differences that could be targeted and remediated,” lead author Julie P.W. Bynum, MD, MPH, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Dr. Bynum, professor of internal medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

The results may not be generalizable to other groups. The observational design of the study cannot completely negate residual confounding. The measures of population risks are coarser than those used in well-characterized epidemiologic studies, leading to potential imprecision. Finally, the study was not designed to determine whether regional differences in the likelihood of ADRD diagnosis resulted in differences in the population health outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

The likelihood of receiving a dementia diagnosis in older adults varies significantly by region across the United States, a new study suggests. Rates ranged from 1.7% to 5.4%, with variations more pronounced in those aged 66-74 years and Black or Hispanic individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed newly diagnosed cases of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) using the 2018-2019 Medicare claims data for 4.8 million older adults across 306 hospital referral regions (HRRs).
• Participants were categorized by age and race or ethnicity to examine variations in diagnosis rates.
• Regional characteristics such as education level and prevalence of obesity, smoking, and diabetes were included to adjust for population risk factors.
• ADRD-specific diagnostic intensity was calculated as the ratio of the observed-to-expected new cases of ADRD in each HRR.

TAKEAWAY:

• Unadjusted analysis for that overall, 3% of older adults received a new ADRD diagnosis in 2019, with rates ranging from 1.7 to 5.4 per 100 individuals across HRRs and varied by age category.
• Regions in the South had the highest unadjusted ADRD case concentration, and the areas in the West/Northwest had the lowest.
• The ADRD-specific diagnosis intensity was 0.69-1.47 and varied the most in Black and Hispanic individuals and those aged 66-74 years.
• Regional differences in ADRD diagnosis rates are not fully explained by population risk factors, indicating potential health system-level differences.

IN PRACTICE:

“From place to place, the likelihood of getting your dementia diagnosed varies, and that may happen because of everything from practice norms for healthcare providers to individual patients’ knowledge and care-seeking behavior. These findings go beyond demographic and population-level differences in risk and indicate that there are health system-level differences that could be targeted and remediated,” lead author Julie P.W. Bynum, MD, MPH, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Dr. Bynum, professor of internal medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

The results may not be generalizable to other groups. The observational design of the study cannot completely negate residual confounding. The measures of population risks are coarser than those used in well-characterized epidemiologic studies, leading to potential imprecision. Finally, the study was not designed to determine whether regional differences in the likelihood of ADRD diagnosis resulted in differences in the population health outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

The likelihood of receiving a dementia diagnosis in older adults varies significantly by region across the United States, a new study suggests. Rates ranged from 1.7% to 5.4%, with variations more pronounced in those aged 66-74 years and Black or Hispanic individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed newly diagnosed cases of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) using the 2018-2019 Medicare claims data for 4.8 million older adults across 306 hospital referral regions (HRRs).
• Participants were categorized by age and race or ethnicity to examine variations in diagnosis rates.
• Regional characteristics such as education level and prevalence of obesity, smoking, and diabetes were included to adjust for population risk factors.
• ADRD-specific diagnostic intensity was calculated as the ratio of the observed-to-expected new cases of ADRD in each HRR.

TAKEAWAY:

• Unadjusted analysis for that overall, 3% of older adults received a new ADRD diagnosis in 2019, with rates ranging from 1.7 to 5.4 per 100 individuals across HRRs and varied by age category.
• Regions in the South had the highest unadjusted ADRD case concentration, and the areas in the West/Northwest had the lowest.
• The ADRD-specific diagnosis intensity was 0.69-1.47 and varied the most in Black and Hispanic individuals and those aged 66-74 years.
• Regional differences in ADRD diagnosis rates are not fully explained by population risk factors, indicating potential health system-level differences.

IN PRACTICE:

“From place to place, the likelihood of getting your dementia diagnosed varies, and that may happen because of everything from practice norms for healthcare providers to individual patients’ knowledge and care-seeking behavior. These findings go beyond demographic and population-level differences in risk and indicate that there are health system-level differences that could be targeted and remediated,” lead author Julie P.W. Bynum, MD, MPH, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Dr. Bynum, professor of internal medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

The results may not be generalizable to other groups. The observational design of the study cannot completely negate residual confounding. The measures of population risks are coarser than those used in well-characterized epidemiologic studies, leading to potential imprecision. Finally, the study was not designed to determine whether regional differences in the likelihood of ADRD diagnosis resulted in differences in the population health outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Elinzanetant, the selective antagonist of neurokinin 1 and 3 receptors, led to rapid improvement in the frequency of vasomotor symptoms and significant improvements in the severity of symptoms, sleep disturbances, and menopause-related quality of life in two phase 3 studies. Researchers led by JoAnn V. Pinkerton, MD, from the University of Virginia Health in Charlottesville, reported their findings, which resulted from the randomized OASIS 1 and 2 studies, in JAMA.

“Women experience a variety of symptoms during their menopausal transition, including vasomotor symptoms ... and sleep disturbances, reported by up to 80% and 60%, respectively,” wrote the researchers. “Menopausal symptoms can negatively impact quality of life, reducing the capacity for daily activities and work productivity, and may be associated with long-term negative health outcomes such as cardiovascular events, depressive symptoms, cognitive decline, and other adverse brain outcomes.” The researchers also noted that some therapeutic options are available, including hormone replacement therapy and, in some countries, paroxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.

The Italian Ministry of Health’s menopause website points out that the transition generally occurs between ages 45 and 55 years. This huge hormonal change has consequences for women’s health. Ministry experts explain that diet and hormone replacement therapy (which should be taken under medical supervision) can prevent or counteract these consequences.

“Many women have contraindications, have tolerability issues leading to discontinuation, or prefer not to take these treatments,” wrote Dr. Pinkerton and colleagues, who evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of elinzanetant, a nonhormonal alternative treatment in development. The two double-blind, randomized, phase 3 studies (OASIS 1 and 2) included postmenopausal participants between ages 40 and 65 years with moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms who were treated with elinzanetant (OASIS 1, n = 199; OASIS 2, n = 200) or placebo (OASIS 1, n = 197; OASIS 2, n = 200).

After 4 weeks of treatment, 62.8% of participants in the OASIS 1 study and 62.2% in the OASIS 2 study reported at least a 50% reduction in the frequency of vasomotor symptoms (29.2% and 32.3% in the respective placebo groups). Improvements increased by week 12, with 71.4% and 74.7% of women in the elinzanetant group achieving this reduction (42.0% and 48.3% in the respective placebo groups). Women who took the medication also reported a reduction in the severity of vasomotor symptoms and improvements in sleep and menopause-related quality of life, with no significant tolerability and safety issues. “Elinzanetant has the potential to provide a well-tolerated and efficacious nonhormonal treatment option to address the unmet health needs of many menopausal individuals with moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms,” the authors concluded.

“With the discovery of nonhormonal treatment options targeting the neurons responsible for vasomotor symptoms, menopause care should advance on this solid scientific footing to benefit affected individuals,” wrote Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, and Chrisandra L. Shufelt, MD, who are affiliated with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and Jacksonville, Florida, in an accompanying editorial.

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

Elinzanetant, the selective antagonist of neurokinin 1 and 3 receptors, led to rapid improvement in the frequency of vasomotor symptoms and significant improvements in the severity of symptoms, sleep disturbances, and menopause-related quality of life in two phase 3 studies. Researchers led by JoAnn V. Pinkerton, MD, from the University of Virginia Health in Charlottesville, reported their findings, which resulted from the randomized OASIS 1 and 2 studies, in JAMA.

“Women experience a variety of symptoms during their menopausal transition, including vasomotor symptoms ... and sleep disturbances, reported by up to 80% and 60%, respectively,” wrote the researchers. “Menopausal symptoms can negatively impact quality of life, reducing the capacity for daily activities and work productivity, and may be associated with long-term negative health outcomes such as cardiovascular events, depressive symptoms, cognitive decline, and other adverse brain outcomes.” The researchers also noted that some therapeutic options are available, including hormone replacement therapy and, in some countries, paroxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.

The Italian Ministry of Health’s menopause website points out that the transition generally occurs between ages 45 and 55 years. This huge hormonal change has consequences for women’s health. Ministry experts explain that diet and hormone replacement therapy (which should be taken under medical supervision) can prevent or counteract these consequences.

“Many women have contraindications, have tolerability issues leading to discontinuation, or prefer not to take these treatments,” wrote Dr. Pinkerton and colleagues, who evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of elinzanetant, a nonhormonal alternative treatment in development. The two double-blind, randomized, phase 3 studies (OASIS 1 and 2) included postmenopausal participants between ages 40 and 65 years with moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms who were treated with elinzanetant (OASIS 1, n = 199; OASIS 2, n = 200) or placebo (OASIS 1, n = 197; OASIS 2, n = 200).

After 4 weeks of treatment, 62.8% of participants in the OASIS 1 study and 62.2% in the OASIS 2 study reported at least a 50% reduction in the frequency of vasomotor symptoms (29.2% and 32.3% in the respective placebo groups). Improvements increased by week 12, with 71.4% and 74.7% of women in the elinzanetant group achieving this reduction (42.0% and 48.3% in the respective placebo groups). Women who took the medication also reported a reduction in the severity of vasomotor symptoms and improvements in sleep and menopause-related quality of life, with no significant tolerability and safety issues. “Elinzanetant has the potential to provide a well-tolerated and efficacious nonhormonal treatment option to address the unmet health needs of many menopausal individuals with moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms,” the authors concluded.

“With the discovery of nonhormonal treatment options targeting the neurons responsible for vasomotor symptoms, menopause care should advance on this solid scientific footing to benefit affected individuals,” wrote Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, and Chrisandra L. Shufelt, MD, who are affiliated with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and Jacksonville, Florida, in an accompanying editorial.

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

Elinzanetant, the selective antagonist of neurokinin 1 and 3 receptors, led to rapid improvement in the frequency of vasomotor symptoms and significant improvements in the severity of symptoms, sleep disturbances, and menopause-related quality of life in two phase 3 studies. Researchers led by JoAnn V. Pinkerton, MD, from the University of Virginia Health in Charlottesville, reported their findings, which resulted from the randomized OASIS 1 and 2 studies, in JAMA.

“Women experience a variety of symptoms during their menopausal transition, including vasomotor symptoms ... and sleep disturbances, reported by up to 80% and 60%, respectively,” wrote the researchers. “Menopausal symptoms can negatively impact quality of life, reducing the capacity for daily activities and work productivity, and may be associated with long-term negative health outcomes such as cardiovascular events, depressive symptoms, cognitive decline, and other adverse brain outcomes.” The researchers also noted that some therapeutic options are available, including hormone replacement therapy and, in some countries, paroxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.

The Italian Ministry of Health’s menopause website points out that the transition generally occurs between ages 45 and 55 years. This huge hormonal change has consequences for women’s health. Ministry experts explain that diet and hormone replacement therapy (which should be taken under medical supervision) can prevent or counteract these consequences.

“Many women have contraindications, have tolerability issues leading to discontinuation, or prefer not to take these treatments,” wrote Dr. Pinkerton and colleagues, who evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of elinzanetant, a nonhormonal alternative treatment in development. The two double-blind, randomized, phase 3 studies (OASIS 1 and 2) included postmenopausal participants between ages 40 and 65 years with moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms who were treated with elinzanetant (OASIS 1, n = 199; OASIS 2, n = 200) or placebo (OASIS 1, n = 197; OASIS 2, n = 200).

After 4 weeks of treatment, 62.8% of participants in the OASIS 1 study and 62.2% in the OASIS 2 study reported at least a 50% reduction in the frequency of vasomotor symptoms (29.2% and 32.3% in the respective placebo groups). Improvements increased by week 12, with 71.4% and 74.7% of women in the elinzanetant group achieving this reduction (42.0% and 48.3% in the respective placebo groups). Women who took the medication also reported a reduction in the severity of vasomotor symptoms and improvements in sleep and menopause-related quality of life, with no significant tolerability and safety issues. “Elinzanetant has the potential to provide a well-tolerated and efficacious nonhormonal treatment option to address the unmet health needs of many menopausal individuals with moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms,” the authors concluded.

“With the discovery of nonhormonal treatment options targeting the neurons responsible for vasomotor symptoms, menopause care should advance on this solid scientific footing to benefit affected individuals,” wrote Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, and Chrisandra L. Shufelt, MD, who are affiliated with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and Jacksonville, Florida, in an accompanying editorial.

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

Hormone therapy (HT) can help women manage menopause symptoms into their 80s and the reasons are varied, according to a retrospective analysis being presented at the annual meeting of The Menopause Society.

“It’s important to know that this is a preselected group of women who had no contraindications to continuing their hormone therapy,” senior author Wendy Wolfman, MD, director of the Menopause Clinic and The Premature Ovarian Insufficiency Clinic at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said in an interview. “They had the initiation of hormone therapy closer to menopause and carried on their hormones. We followed them for a long time and basically saw no real concerns about taking the hormones and the patients did very well. It’s important to emphasize this was not the new initiation of hormone therapy in elderly women.”

She said that, in her large tertiary referral center, “I still see patients who are referred who are told that they have to stop their hormones after 5 years based on a false assumption. Everybody ages at different rates and everybody has different risk factors.”

About 70%-80% of women experience menopause symptoms that restrict quality of life and productivity, the authors noted. HT has consistently been the most effective means for managing many of the side effects, especially hot flashes.

Hot flashes last on average 7-11 years. But they continue in up to 40% of women in their 60s and 10%-15% in their 70s, the authors wrote. 

The analysis included more than 100 women in Canada older than 65 who continue to use HT and explored the motivations of the women to use them.

The average age of the women was 71 and nearly 8% were age 80 or older. The mean age for starting HT was 52 years and the women continued HT for an average 18 years, though 42% used it regularly for more than 20 years. Most of the women (nearly 88%) used a transdermal form of estrogen; only 12% used oral estrogen pills. Fewer than 5% of participants used synthetic progestins.

Controlling hot flashes was the No. 1 reason the women continued HT beyond age 65 (55%), followed by a desire for a better quality of life (29%), and to reduce chronic pain and arthritis symptoms (7%).

Some adverse effects were reported – postmenopausal bleeding was the most common – but no strokes, myocardial infarctions, or uterine cancers were documented.

More than one fourth (26.4%) of the women tried stopping HT once, but 87% reported that the return of hot flashes was the main reason to restart HT.

In addition, “many women choose to continue hormone therapy long term for relief of nonvasomotor symptoms, preservation of bone density, and a desire to benefit from potential long-term cardiovascular protection,” said Lauren F. Streicher, MD, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, who was not part of the research.

In 2022, The Menopause Society position statement on hormone therapy acknowledged that, on an individual basis, it is appropriate for women to continue hormone therapy long term with counseling on benefits and risks.

“However, few studies have evaluated the outcomes of using hormone therapy for more than 10 years, and individual motivation for doing so,” Dr. Streicher said. She pointed to a study that analyzed the insurance records of more than 10 million women who continued their HT past the age of 65 and reassuringly found that there were significant risk reductions in all-cause mortality, breast cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, heart failure, venous thromboembolism, atrial fibrillation, acute myocardial infarction, and dementia. In that study, however, the reasons women chose to continue hormone therapy were not specified. 

“In this retrospective Canadian study,” she noted, “the outcomes were again reassuring, with no increase in strokes, myocardial infarctions, or uterine cancers. The reasons cited for continuing hormone therapy were not just to treat ongoing vasomotor symptoms, but also other menopause symptoms such as musculoskeletal aches and pains, and overall quality of life.

Dr. Streicher said that, while long-term longitudinal studies are needed to make definitive recommendations, “It is reassuring that women who choose to extend hormone therapy can safely do so. It is irresponsible, cruel, and nonsensical to continue to make blanket statements that hormone therapy should be discontinued based on age or years of use and commit women to enduring symptoms and depriving them of possible long-term benefits.”

Dr. Streicher gives lectures for Midi Health and owns Sermonix stock. Dr. Wolfman has been on the advisory boards for many pharmaceutical companies. She is the past president of the Canadian Menopause Society and is on the board of the International Menopause Society.

Hormone therapy (HT) can help women manage menopause symptoms into their 80s and the reasons are varied, according to a retrospective analysis being presented at the annual meeting of The Menopause Society.

“It’s important to know that this is a preselected group of women who had no contraindications to continuing their hormone therapy,” senior author Wendy Wolfman, MD, director of the Menopause Clinic and The Premature Ovarian Insufficiency Clinic at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said in an interview. “They had the initiation of hormone therapy closer to menopause and carried on their hormones. We followed them for a long time and basically saw no real concerns about taking the hormones and the patients did very well. It’s important to emphasize this was not the new initiation of hormone therapy in elderly women.”

She said that, in her large tertiary referral center, “I still see patients who are referred who are told that they have to stop their hormones after 5 years based on a false assumption. Everybody ages at different rates and everybody has different risk factors.”

About 70%-80% of women experience menopause symptoms that restrict quality of life and productivity, the authors noted. HT has consistently been the most effective means for managing many of the side effects, especially hot flashes.

Hot flashes last on average 7-11 years. But they continue in up to 40% of women in their 60s and 10%-15% in their 70s, the authors wrote. 

The analysis included more than 100 women in Canada older than 65 who continue to use HT and explored the motivations of the women to use them.

The average age of the women was 71 and nearly 8% were age 80 or older. The mean age for starting HT was 52 years and the women continued HT for an average 18 years, though 42% used it regularly for more than 20 years. Most of the women (nearly 88%) used a transdermal form of estrogen; only 12% used oral estrogen pills. Fewer than 5% of participants used synthetic progestins.

Controlling hot flashes was the No. 1 reason the women continued HT beyond age 65 (55%), followed by a desire for a better quality of life (29%), and to reduce chronic pain and arthritis symptoms (7%).

Some adverse effects were reported – postmenopausal bleeding was the most common – but no strokes, myocardial infarctions, or uterine cancers were documented.

More than one fourth (26.4%) of the women tried stopping HT once, but 87% reported that the return of hot flashes was the main reason to restart HT.

In addition, “many women choose to continue hormone therapy long term for relief of nonvasomotor symptoms, preservation of bone density, and a desire to benefit from potential long-term cardiovascular protection,” said Lauren F. Streicher, MD, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, who was not part of the research.

In 2022, The Menopause Society position statement on hormone therapy acknowledged that, on an individual basis, it is appropriate for women to continue hormone therapy long term with counseling on benefits and risks.

“However, few studies have evaluated the outcomes of using hormone therapy for more than 10 years, and individual motivation for doing so,” Dr. Streicher said. She pointed to a study that analyzed the insurance records of more than 10 million women who continued their HT past the age of 65 and reassuringly found that there were significant risk reductions in all-cause mortality, breast cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, heart failure, venous thromboembolism, atrial fibrillation, acute myocardial infarction, and dementia. In that study, however, the reasons women chose to continue hormone therapy were not specified. 

“In this retrospective Canadian study,” she noted, “the outcomes were again reassuring, with no increase in strokes, myocardial infarctions, or uterine cancers. The reasons cited for continuing hormone therapy were not just to treat ongoing vasomotor symptoms, but also other menopause symptoms such as musculoskeletal aches and pains, and overall quality of life.

Dr. Streicher said that, while long-term longitudinal studies are needed to make definitive recommendations, “It is reassuring that women who choose to extend hormone therapy can safely do so. It is irresponsible, cruel, and nonsensical to continue to make blanket statements that hormone therapy should be discontinued based on age or years of use and commit women to enduring symptoms and depriving them of possible long-term benefits.”

Dr. Streicher gives lectures for Midi Health and owns Sermonix stock. Dr. Wolfman has been on the advisory boards for many pharmaceutical companies. She is the past president of the Canadian Menopause Society and is on the board of the International Menopause Society.

Hormone therapy (HT) can help women manage menopause symptoms into their 80s and the reasons are varied, according to a retrospective analysis being presented at the annual meeting of The Menopause Society.

“It’s important to know that this is a preselected group of women who had no contraindications to continuing their hormone therapy,” senior author Wendy Wolfman, MD, director of the Menopause Clinic and The Premature Ovarian Insufficiency Clinic at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said in an interview. “They had the initiation of hormone therapy closer to menopause and carried on their hormones. We followed them for a long time and basically saw no real concerns about taking the hormones and the patients did very well. It’s important to emphasize this was not the new initiation of hormone therapy in elderly women.”

She said that, in her large tertiary referral center, “I still see patients who are referred who are told that they have to stop their hormones after 5 years based on a false assumption. Everybody ages at different rates and everybody has different risk factors.”

About 70%-80% of women experience menopause symptoms that restrict quality of life and productivity, the authors noted. HT has consistently been the most effective means for managing many of the side effects, especially hot flashes.

Hot flashes last on average 7-11 years. But they continue in up to 40% of women in their 60s and 10%-15% in their 70s, the authors wrote. 

The analysis included more than 100 women in Canada older than 65 who continue to use HT and explored the motivations of the women to use them.

The average age of the women was 71 and nearly 8% were age 80 or older. The mean age for starting HT was 52 years and the women continued HT for an average 18 years, though 42% used it regularly for more than 20 years. Most of the women (nearly 88%) used a transdermal form of estrogen; only 12% used oral estrogen pills. Fewer than 5% of participants used synthetic progestins.

Controlling hot flashes was the No. 1 reason the women continued HT beyond age 65 (55%), followed by a desire for a better quality of life (29%), and to reduce chronic pain and arthritis symptoms (7%).

Some adverse effects were reported – postmenopausal bleeding was the most common – but no strokes, myocardial infarctions, or uterine cancers were documented.

More than one fourth (26.4%) of the women tried stopping HT once, but 87% reported that the return of hot flashes was the main reason to restart HT.

In addition, “many women choose to continue hormone therapy long term for relief of nonvasomotor symptoms, preservation of bone density, and a desire to benefit from potential long-term cardiovascular protection,” said Lauren F. Streicher, MD, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, who was not part of the research.

In 2022, The Menopause Society position statement on hormone therapy acknowledged that, on an individual basis, it is appropriate for women to continue hormone therapy long term with counseling on benefits and risks.

“However, few studies have evaluated the outcomes of using hormone therapy for more than 10 years, and individual motivation for doing so,” Dr. Streicher said. She pointed to a study that analyzed the insurance records of more than 10 million women who continued their HT past the age of 65 and reassuringly found that there were significant risk reductions in all-cause mortality, breast cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, heart failure, venous thromboembolism, atrial fibrillation, acute myocardial infarction, and dementia. In that study, however, the reasons women chose to continue hormone therapy were not specified. 

“In this retrospective Canadian study,” she noted, “the outcomes were again reassuring, with no increase in strokes, myocardial infarctions, or uterine cancers. The reasons cited for continuing hormone therapy were not just to treat ongoing vasomotor symptoms, but also other menopause symptoms such as musculoskeletal aches and pains, and overall quality of life.

Dr. Streicher said that, while long-term longitudinal studies are needed to make definitive recommendations, “It is reassuring that women who choose to extend hormone therapy can safely do so. It is irresponsible, cruel, and nonsensical to continue to make blanket statements that hormone therapy should be discontinued based on age or years of use and commit women to enduring symptoms and depriving them of possible long-term benefits.”

Dr. Streicher gives lectures for Midi Health and owns Sermonix stock. Dr. Wolfman has been on the advisory boards for many pharmaceutical companies. She is the past president of the Canadian Menopause Society and is on the board of the International Menopause Society.

TOPLINE:

Addressing vision impairments could help with dementia prevention, as vision impairment is linked to 19% of dementia cases in older adults.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS).
• The analysis included 2767 US adults aged 71 years or older (54.7% female and 45.3% male).
• Vision impairments were defined using 2019 World Health Organization criteria. Near and distance vision impairments were defined as greater than 0.30 logMAR, and contrast sensitivity impairment was identified by scores below 1.55 logCS.
• Dementia was classified using a standardized algorithm developed in NHATS, which incorporated a series of tests measuring cognition, memory and orientation, reports of Alzheimer’s disease, or a dementia diagnosis from the patient or a proxy, and an informant questionnaire (Ascertain Dementia-8 Dementia Screening Interview).
• The study analyzed data from 2021, with the primary outcome being the population attributable fraction (PAF) of dementia from vision impairment.

TAKEAWAY:

• The PAF of dementia associated with at least one vision impairment was 19% (95% CI, 8.2-29.7).
• Impairment in contrast sensitivity had the highest PAF among all other vision issues, at 15% (95% CI, 6.6-23.6). This figure was higher than that for impairment of near acuity, at 9.7% (95% CI, 2.6-17.0), or distance acuity, at 4.9% (95% CI, 0.1-9.9).
• The highest PAFs for dementia due to vision impairment was among participants aged 71-79 years (24.3%; 95% CI, 6.6-41.8), women (26.8%; 95% CI, 12.2-39.9), and non-Hispanic White participants (22.3%; 95% CI, 9.6-34.5).

IN PRACTICE:

“While not proving a cause-and-effect relationship, these findings support inclusion of multiple objective measures of vision impairments, including contrast sensitivity and visual acuity, to capture the total potential impact of addressing vision impairment on dementia,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Jason R. Smith, ScM, of the Department of Epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. It was published online in JAMA Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The limited sample sizes for American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, and Hispanic groups prevented researchers from calculating PAFs for these populations. The cross-sectional design prevented the researchers from examining the timing of vision impairment in relation to a diagnosis of dementia. The study did not explore links between other measures of vision and dementia. Those with early cognitive impairment may not have updated glasses, affecting visual performance. The findings from the study may not apply to institutionalized older adults.

DISCLOSURES:

Jennifer A. Deal, PhD, MHS, reported receiving personal fees from Frontiers in Epidemiology, Velux Stiftung, and Medical Education Speakers Network outside the submitted work. Nicholas S. Reed, AuD, PhD, reported receiving stock options from Neosensory outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Addressing vision impairments could help with dementia prevention, as vision impairment is linked to 19% of dementia cases in older adults.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS).
• The analysis included 2767 US adults aged 71 years or older (54.7% female and 45.3% male).
• Vision impairments were defined using 2019 World Health Organization criteria. Near and distance vision impairments were defined as greater than 0.30 logMAR, and contrast sensitivity impairment was identified by scores below 1.55 logCS.
• Dementia was classified using a standardized algorithm developed in NHATS, which incorporated a series of tests measuring cognition, memory and orientation, reports of Alzheimer’s disease, or a dementia diagnosis from the patient or a proxy, and an informant questionnaire (Ascertain Dementia-8 Dementia Screening Interview).
• The study analyzed data from 2021, with the primary outcome being the population attributable fraction (PAF) of dementia from vision impairment.

TAKEAWAY:

• The PAF of dementia associated with at least one vision impairment was 19% (95% CI, 8.2-29.7).
• Impairment in contrast sensitivity had the highest PAF among all other vision issues, at 15% (95% CI, 6.6-23.6). This figure was higher than that for impairment of near acuity, at 9.7% (95% CI, 2.6-17.0), or distance acuity, at 4.9% (95% CI, 0.1-9.9).
• The highest PAFs for dementia due to vision impairment was among participants aged 71-79 years (24.3%; 95% CI, 6.6-41.8), women (26.8%; 95% CI, 12.2-39.9), and non-Hispanic White participants (22.3%; 95% CI, 9.6-34.5).

IN PRACTICE:

“While not proving a cause-and-effect relationship, these findings support inclusion of multiple objective measures of vision impairments, including contrast sensitivity and visual acuity, to capture the total potential impact of addressing vision impairment on dementia,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Jason R. Smith, ScM, of the Department of Epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. It was published online in JAMA Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The limited sample sizes for American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, and Hispanic groups prevented researchers from calculating PAFs for these populations. The cross-sectional design prevented the researchers from examining the timing of vision impairment in relation to a diagnosis of dementia. The study did not explore links between other measures of vision and dementia. Those with early cognitive impairment may not have updated glasses, affecting visual performance. The findings from the study may not apply to institutionalized older adults.

DISCLOSURES:

Jennifer A. Deal, PhD, MHS, reported receiving personal fees from Frontiers in Epidemiology, Velux Stiftung, and Medical Education Speakers Network outside the submitted work. Nicholas S. Reed, AuD, PhD, reported receiving stock options from Neosensory outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Addressing vision impairments could help with dementia prevention, as vision impairment is linked to 19% of dementia cases in older adults.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS).
• The analysis included 2767 US adults aged 71 years or older (54.7% female and 45.3% male).
• Vision impairments were defined using 2019 World Health Organization criteria. Near and distance vision impairments were defined as greater than 0.30 logMAR, and contrast sensitivity impairment was identified by scores below 1.55 logCS.
• Dementia was classified using a standardized algorithm developed in NHATS, which incorporated a series of tests measuring cognition, memory and orientation, reports of Alzheimer’s disease, or a dementia diagnosis from the patient or a proxy, and an informant questionnaire (Ascertain Dementia-8 Dementia Screening Interview).
• The study analyzed data from 2021, with the primary outcome being the population attributable fraction (PAF) of dementia from vision impairment.

TAKEAWAY:

• The PAF of dementia associated with at least one vision impairment was 19% (95% CI, 8.2-29.7).
• Impairment in contrast sensitivity had the highest PAF among all other vision issues, at 15% (95% CI, 6.6-23.6). This figure was higher than that for impairment of near acuity, at 9.7% (95% CI, 2.6-17.0), or distance acuity, at 4.9% (95% CI, 0.1-9.9).
• The highest PAFs for dementia due to vision impairment was among participants aged 71-79 years (24.3%; 95% CI, 6.6-41.8), women (26.8%; 95% CI, 12.2-39.9), and non-Hispanic White participants (22.3%; 95% CI, 9.6-34.5).

IN PRACTICE:

“While not proving a cause-and-effect relationship, these findings support inclusion of multiple objective measures of vision impairments, including contrast sensitivity and visual acuity, to capture the total potential impact of addressing vision impairment on dementia,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Jason R. Smith, ScM, of the Department of Epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. It was published online in JAMA Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The limited sample sizes for American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, and Hispanic groups prevented researchers from calculating PAFs for these populations. The cross-sectional design prevented the researchers from examining the timing of vision impairment in relation to a diagnosis of dementia. The study did not explore links between other measures of vision and dementia. Those with early cognitive impairment may not have updated glasses, affecting visual performance. The findings from the study may not apply to institutionalized older adults.

DISCLOSURES:

Jennifer A. Deal, PhD, MHS, reported receiving personal fees from Frontiers in Epidemiology, Velux Stiftung, and Medical Education Speakers Network outside the submitted work. Nicholas S. Reed, AuD, PhD, reported receiving stock options from Neosensory outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The study was published online in Frontiers of Neuroscience.
 

Shining a Light

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strong Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are We Measuring the Right Light?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The study was published online in Frontiers of Neuroscience.
 

Shining a Light

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strong Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are We Measuring the Right Light?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The study was published online in Frontiers of Neuroscience.
 

Shining a Light

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strong Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are We Measuring the Right Light?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

Four different breast cancer family history profiles were:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

Four different breast cancer family history profiles were:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

Four different breast cancer family history profiles were:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

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

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

BedMed and BedMed-Frail

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. Ward: The median age was about 88?

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

Other Complementary and Conflicting Studies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. Ward: And the conclusion is the same.

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

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

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

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

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

Do What You Like, or Stick to Morning Dosing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

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

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

BedMed and BedMed-Frail

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. Ward: The median age was about 88?

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

Other Complementary and Conflicting Studies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. Ward: And the conclusion is the same.

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

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

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

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

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

Do What You Like, or Stick to Morning Dosing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

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

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

BedMed and BedMed-Frail

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. Ward: The median age was about 88?

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

Other Complementary and Conflicting Studies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. Ward: And the conclusion is the same.

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

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

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

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

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

Do What You Like, or Stick to Morning Dosing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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