Geriatrics

Here are 5 articles from the September issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. No birth rate gains from levothyroxine in pregnancy

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2ZoXzK8
Expires March 23, 2020

2. Simple screening for risk of falling in elderly can guide prevention

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2NKXxu3
Expires March 24, 2020

3. Time to revisit fasting rules for surgery patients

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2HHwHiD
Expires March 26, 2020

4. Four biomarkers could distinguish psoriatic arthritis from osteoarthritis

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/344WPNS
Expires March 28, 2020

5. More chest compression–only CPR leads to increased survival rates

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/30CahGF
Expires April 1, 2020

Here are 5 articles from the September issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. No birth rate gains from levothyroxine in pregnancy

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2ZoXzK8
Expires March 23, 2020

2. Simple screening for risk of falling in elderly can guide prevention

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2NKXxu3
Expires March 24, 2020

3. Time to revisit fasting rules for surgery patients

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2HHwHiD
Expires March 26, 2020

4. Four biomarkers could distinguish psoriatic arthritis from osteoarthritis

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/344WPNS
Expires March 28, 2020

5. More chest compression–only CPR leads to increased survival rates

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/30CahGF
Expires April 1, 2020

Here are 5 articles from the September issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. No birth rate gains from levothyroxine in pregnancy

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2ZoXzK8
Expires March 23, 2020

2. Simple screening for risk of falling in elderly can guide prevention

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2NKXxu3
Expires March 24, 2020

3. Time to revisit fasting rules for surgery patients

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2HHwHiD
Expires March 26, 2020

4. Four biomarkers could distinguish psoriatic arthritis from osteoarthritis

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/344WPNS
Expires March 28, 2020

5. More chest compression–only CPR leads to increased survival rates

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/30CahGF
Expires April 1, 2020

High-dose vitamin D supplementation provides no benefit for maintaining bone quality in healthy older adults without osteoporosis, findings from a 3-year, randomized clinical trial suggest.

Irina Shisterova/Getty Images

In fact, rather than a hypothesized increase in volumetric bone mineral density (BMD) with doses well above the recommended dietary allowance, a negative dose-response relationship was observed, Lauren A. Burt, PhD, of the McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health at the University of Calgary (Alta.) and colleagues found.

The total volumetric radial BMD was significantly lower in 101 and 97 study participants randomized to receive daily vitamin D₃ doses of 10,000 IU or 4,000 IU for 3 years, respectively (–7.5 and –3.9 mg of calcium hydroxyapatite [HA] per cm³), compared with 105 participants randomized to a reference group that received 400 IU (mean percent changes, –3.5%, –2.4%, and –1.2%, respectively). Total volumetric tibial BMD was also significantly lower in the 10,000 IU arm, compared with the reference arm (–4.1 mg HA per cm³; mean percent change –1.7% vs. –0.4%), the investigators reported Aug. 27 in JAMA.

There also were no significant differences seen between the three groups for the coprimary endpoint of bone strength at either the radius or tibia.

Participants in the double-blind trial were community-dwelling healthy men and women aged 55-70 years (mean age, 62.2 years) without osteoporosis and with baseline levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) of 30-125 nmol/L. They were enrolled from a single center between August 2013 and December 2017 and treated with daily oral vitamin D₃ drops at the assigned dosage for 3 years and with calcium supplementation if dietary calcium intake was less than 1,200 mg daily.

Mean supplementation adherence was 99% among the 303 participants who completed the trial (out of 311 enrolled), and adherence was similar across the groups.

Baseline 25(OH)D levels in the 400 IU group were 76.3 nmol/L at baseline, 76.7 nmol/L at 3 months, and 77.4 nmol/L at 3 years. The corresponding measures for the 4,000 IU group were 81.3, 115.3, and 132.2 nmol/L, and for the 10,000 IU group, they were 78.4, 188.0, and 144.4, the investigators said, noting that significant group-by-time interactions were noted for volumetric BMD.

Bone strength decreased over time, but group-by-time interactions for that measure were not statistically significant, they said.

A total of 44 serious adverse events occurred in 38 participants (12.2%), and one death from presumed myocardial infarction occurred in the 400 IU group. Of eight prespecified adverse events, only hypercalcemia and hypercalciuria had significant dose-response effects; all episodes of hypercalcemia were mild and had resolved at follow-up, and the two hypercalcemia events, which occurred in one participant in the 10,000 IU group, were also transient. No significant difference in fall rates was seen in the three groups, they noted.

Vitamin D is considered beneficial for preventing and treating osteoporosis, and data support supplementation in individuals with 25(OH)D levels less than 30 nmol/L, but recent meta-analyses did not find a major treatment benefit for osteoporosis or for preventing falls and fractures, the investigators said.

Further, while most supplementation recommendations call for 400-2,000 IU daily, with a tolerable upper intake level of 4,000-10,000 IU, 3% of U.S. adults in 2013-2014 reported intake of at least 4,000 IU per day, but few studies have assessed the effects of doses at or above the upper intake level for 12 months or longer, they noted, adding that this study was “motivated by the prevalence of high-dose vitamin D supplementation among healthy adults.”

“It was hypothesized that a higher dose of vitamin D has a positive effect on high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT measures of volumetric density and strength, perhaps via suppression of parathyroid hormone (PTH)–mediated bone turnover,” they wrote.

However, based on the significantly lower radial BMD seen with both 4,000 and 10,000 IU, compared with 400 IU; the lower tibial BMD with 10,000 IU, compared with 400 IU; and the lack of a difference in bone strength at the radius and tibia, the findings do not support a benefit of high-dose vitamin D supplementation for bone health, they said, noting that additional study is needed to determine whether such doses are harmful.

“Because these results are in the opposite direction of the research hypothesis, this evidence of high-dose vitamin D having a negative effect on bone should be regarded as hypothesis generating, requiring confirmation with further research,” they concluded.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Burt L et al. JAMA. 2019 Aug 27;322(8):736-45.

High-dose vitamin D supplementation provides no benefit for maintaining bone quality in healthy older adults without osteoporosis, findings from a 3-year, randomized clinical trial suggest.

Irina Shisterova/Getty Images

In fact, rather than a hypothesized increase in volumetric bone mineral density (BMD) with doses well above the recommended dietary allowance, a negative dose-response relationship was observed, Lauren A. Burt, PhD, of the McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health at the University of Calgary (Alta.) and colleagues found.

The total volumetric radial BMD was significantly lower in 101 and 97 study participants randomized to receive daily vitamin D₃ doses of 10,000 IU or 4,000 IU for 3 years, respectively (–7.5 and –3.9 mg of calcium hydroxyapatite [HA] per cm³), compared with 105 participants randomized to a reference group that received 400 IU (mean percent changes, –3.5%, –2.4%, and –1.2%, respectively). Total volumetric tibial BMD was also significantly lower in the 10,000 IU arm, compared with the reference arm (–4.1 mg HA per cm³; mean percent change –1.7% vs. –0.4%), the investigators reported Aug. 27 in JAMA.

There also were no significant differences seen between the three groups for the coprimary endpoint of bone strength at either the radius or tibia.

Participants in the double-blind trial were community-dwelling healthy men and women aged 55-70 years (mean age, 62.2 years) without osteoporosis and with baseline levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) of 30-125 nmol/L. They were enrolled from a single center between August 2013 and December 2017 and treated with daily oral vitamin D₃ drops at the assigned dosage for 3 years and with calcium supplementation if dietary calcium intake was less than 1,200 mg daily.

Mean supplementation adherence was 99% among the 303 participants who completed the trial (out of 311 enrolled), and adherence was similar across the groups.

Baseline 25(OH)D levels in the 400 IU group were 76.3 nmol/L at baseline, 76.7 nmol/L at 3 months, and 77.4 nmol/L at 3 years. The corresponding measures for the 4,000 IU group were 81.3, 115.3, and 132.2 nmol/L, and for the 10,000 IU group, they were 78.4, 188.0, and 144.4, the investigators said, noting that significant group-by-time interactions were noted for volumetric BMD.

Bone strength decreased over time, but group-by-time interactions for that measure were not statistically significant, they said.

A total of 44 serious adverse events occurred in 38 participants (12.2%), and one death from presumed myocardial infarction occurred in the 400 IU group. Of eight prespecified adverse events, only hypercalcemia and hypercalciuria had significant dose-response effects; all episodes of hypercalcemia were mild and had resolved at follow-up, and the two hypercalcemia events, which occurred in one participant in the 10,000 IU group, were also transient. No significant difference in fall rates was seen in the three groups, they noted.

Vitamin D is considered beneficial for preventing and treating osteoporosis, and data support supplementation in individuals with 25(OH)D levels less than 30 nmol/L, but recent meta-analyses did not find a major treatment benefit for osteoporosis or for preventing falls and fractures, the investigators said.

Further, while most supplementation recommendations call for 400-2,000 IU daily, with a tolerable upper intake level of 4,000-10,000 IU, 3% of U.S. adults in 2013-2014 reported intake of at least 4,000 IU per day, but few studies have assessed the effects of doses at or above the upper intake level for 12 months or longer, they noted, adding that this study was “motivated by the prevalence of high-dose vitamin D supplementation among healthy adults.”

“It was hypothesized that a higher dose of vitamin D has a positive effect on high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT measures of volumetric density and strength, perhaps via suppression of parathyroid hormone (PTH)–mediated bone turnover,” they wrote.

However, based on the significantly lower radial BMD seen with both 4,000 and 10,000 IU, compared with 400 IU; the lower tibial BMD with 10,000 IU, compared with 400 IU; and the lack of a difference in bone strength at the radius and tibia, the findings do not support a benefit of high-dose vitamin D supplementation for bone health, they said, noting that additional study is needed to determine whether such doses are harmful.

“Because these results are in the opposite direction of the research hypothesis, this evidence of high-dose vitamin D having a negative effect on bone should be regarded as hypothesis generating, requiring confirmation with further research,” they concluded.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Burt L et al. JAMA. 2019 Aug 27;322(8):736-45.

High-dose vitamin D supplementation provides no benefit for maintaining bone quality in healthy older adults without osteoporosis, findings from a 3-year, randomized clinical trial suggest.

Irina Shisterova/Getty Images

In fact, rather than a hypothesized increase in volumetric bone mineral density (BMD) with doses well above the recommended dietary allowance, a negative dose-response relationship was observed, Lauren A. Burt, PhD, of the McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health at the University of Calgary (Alta.) and colleagues found.

The total volumetric radial BMD was significantly lower in 101 and 97 study participants randomized to receive daily vitamin D₃ doses of 10,000 IU or 4,000 IU for 3 years, respectively (–7.5 and –3.9 mg of calcium hydroxyapatite [HA] per cm³), compared with 105 participants randomized to a reference group that received 400 IU (mean percent changes, –3.5%, –2.4%, and –1.2%, respectively). Total volumetric tibial BMD was also significantly lower in the 10,000 IU arm, compared with the reference arm (–4.1 mg HA per cm³; mean percent change –1.7% vs. –0.4%), the investigators reported Aug. 27 in JAMA.

There also were no significant differences seen between the three groups for the coprimary endpoint of bone strength at either the radius or tibia.

Participants in the double-blind trial were community-dwelling healthy men and women aged 55-70 years (mean age, 62.2 years) without osteoporosis and with baseline levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) of 30-125 nmol/L. They were enrolled from a single center between August 2013 and December 2017 and treated with daily oral vitamin D₃ drops at the assigned dosage for 3 years and with calcium supplementation if dietary calcium intake was less than 1,200 mg daily.

Mean supplementation adherence was 99% among the 303 participants who completed the trial (out of 311 enrolled), and adherence was similar across the groups.

Baseline 25(OH)D levels in the 400 IU group were 76.3 nmol/L at baseline, 76.7 nmol/L at 3 months, and 77.4 nmol/L at 3 years. The corresponding measures for the 4,000 IU group were 81.3, 115.3, and 132.2 nmol/L, and for the 10,000 IU group, they were 78.4, 188.0, and 144.4, the investigators said, noting that significant group-by-time interactions were noted for volumetric BMD.

Bone strength decreased over time, but group-by-time interactions for that measure were not statistically significant, they said.

A total of 44 serious adverse events occurred in 38 participants (12.2%), and one death from presumed myocardial infarction occurred in the 400 IU group. Of eight prespecified adverse events, only hypercalcemia and hypercalciuria had significant dose-response effects; all episodes of hypercalcemia were mild and had resolved at follow-up, and the two hypercalcemia events, which occurred in one participant in the 10,000 IU group, were also transient. No significant difference in fall rates was seen in the three groups, they noted.

Vitamin D is considered beneficial for preventing and treating osteoporosis, and data support supplementation in individuals with 25(OH)D levels less than 30 nmol/L, but recent meta-analyses did not find a major treatment benefit for osteoporosis or for preventing falls and fractures, the investigators said.

Further, while most supplementation recommendations call for 400-2,000 IU daily, with a tolerable upper intake level of 4,000-10,000 IU, 3% of U.S. adults in 2013-2014 reported intake of at least 4,000 IU per day, but few studies have assessed the effects of doses at or above the upper intake level for 12 months or longer, they noted, adding that this study was “motivated by the prevalence of high-dose vitamin D supplementation among healthy adults.”

“It was hypothesized that a higher dose of vitamin D has a positive effect on high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT measures of volumetric density and strength, perhaps via suppression of parathyroid hormone (PTH)–mediated bone turnover,” they wrote.

However, based on the significantly lower radial BMD seen with both 4,000 and 10,000 IU, compared with 400 IU; the lower tibial BMD with 10,000 IU, compared with 400 IU; and the lack of a difference in bone strength at the radius and tibia, the findings do not support a benefit of high-dose vitamin D supplementation for bone health, they said, noting that additional study is needed to determine whether such doses are harmful.

“Because these results are in the opposite direction of the research hypothesis, this evidence of high-dose vitamin D having a negative effect on bone should be regarded as hypothesis generating, requiring confirmation with further research,” they concluded.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Burt L et al. JAMA. 2019 Aug 27;322(8):736-45.

A single, simple question about a patient’s experience of falls in the previous year can help predict their risk of fractures, a study suggests.

Alexander Raths/Fotolia

In Osteoporosis International, researchers reported the outcomes of a cohort study using Manitoba clinical registry data from 24,943 men and women aged 40 years and older within the province who had undergone a fracture-probability assessment, and had data on self-reported falls for the previous year and fracture outcomes.

William D. Leslie, MD, of the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, and coauthors wrote that a frequent criticism of the FRAX fracture risk assessment tool was the fact that it didn’t include falls or fall risk in predicting fractures.

“Recent evidence derived from carefully conducted research cohort studies in men found that falls increase fracture risk independent of FRAX probability,” they wrote. “However, data are inconsistent with a paucity of evidence demonstrating usefulness of self-reported fall data as collected in routine clinical practice.”

Over a mean observation time of 2.7 years, 3.5% of the study population sustained at least one major osteoporotic fracture, 0.8% experienced a hip fracture, and 4.9% experienced any incident fracture.

The analysis showed an increased risk of fracture with the increasing number of self-reported falls experienced in the previous year. The risk of major osteoporotic fracture was 49% higher among individuals who reported one fall, 74% in those who reported two falls and 2.6-fold higher for those who reported three or more falls in the previous year, compared with those who did not report any falls.

A similar pattern was seen for any incident fracture and hip fracture, with a 3.4-fold higher risk of hip fracture seen in those who reported three or more falls. The study also showed an increase in mortality risk with increasing number of falls.

“We documented that a simple question regarding self-reported falls in the previous year could be easily collected during routine clinical practice and that this information was strongly predictive of short-term fracture risk independent of multiple clinical risk factors including fracture probability using the FRAX tool with BMD [bone mineral density],” the authors wrote.

The analysis did not find an interaction with age or sex and the number of falls.

John A. Kanis, MD, reported grants from Amgen, Lily, and Radius Health. Three other coauthors reported nothing to declare for the context of this article, but reported research grants, speaking honoraria, consultancies from a variety of pharmaceutical companies and organizations. The remaining five coauthors declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Leslie WD et al. Osteoporos Int. 2019 Aug. 2. doi: 10.1007/s00198-019-05106-3.

A single, simple question about a patient’s experience of falls in the previous year can help predict their risk of fractures, a study suggests.

Alexander Raths/Fotolia

In Osteoporosis International, researchers reported the outcomes of a cohort study using Manitoba clinical registry data from 24,943 men and women aged 40 years and older within the province who had undergone a fracture-probability assessment, and had data on self-reported falls for the previous year and fracture outcomes.

William D. Leslie, MD, of the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, and coauthors wrote that a frequent criticism of the FRAX fracture risk assessment tool was the fact that it didn’t include falls or fall risk in predicting fractures.

“Recent evidence derived from carefully conducted research cohort studies in men found that falls increase fracture risk independent of FRAX probability,” they wrote. “However, data are inconsistent with a paucity of evidence demonstrating usefulness of self-reported fall data as collected in routine clinical practice.”

Over a mean observation time of 2.7 years, 3.5% of the study population sustained at least one major osteoporotic fracture, 0.8% experienced a hip fracture, and 4.9% experienced any incident fracture.

The analysis showed an increased risk of fracture with the increasing number of self-reported falls experienced in the previous year. The risk of major osteoporotic fracture was 49% higher among individuals who reported one fall, 74% in those who reported two falls and 2.6-fold higher for those who reported three or more falls in the previous year, compared with those who did not report any falls.

A similar pattern was seen for any incident fracture and hip fracture, with a 3.4-fold higher risk of hip fracture seen in those who reported three or more falls. The study also showed an increase in mortality risk with increasing number of falls.

“We documented that a simple question regarding self-reported falls in the previous year could be easily collected during routine clinical practice and that this information was strongly predictive of short-term fracture risk independent of multiple clinical risk factors including fracture probability using the FRAX tool with BMD [bone mineral density],” the authors wrote.

The analysis did not find an interaction with age or sex and the number of falls.

John A. Kanis, MD, reported grants from Amgen, Lily, and Radius Health. Three other coauthors reported nothing to declare for the context of this article, but reported research grants, speaking honoraria, consultancies from a variety of pharmaceutical companies and organizations. The remaining five coauthors declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Leslie WD et al. Osteoporos Int. 2019 Aug. 2. doi: 10.1007/s00198-019-05106-3.

A single, simple question about a patient’s experience of falls in the previous year can help predict their risk of fractures, a study suggests.

Alexander Raths/Fotolia

In Osteoporosis International, researchers reported the outcomes of a cohort study using Manitoba clinical registry data from 24,943 men and women aged 40 years and older within the province who had undergone a fracture-probability assessment, and had data on self-reported falls for the previous year and fracture outcomes.

William D. Leslie, MD, of the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, and coauthors wrote that a frequent criticism of the FRAX fracture risk assessment tool was the fact that it didn’t include falls or fall risk in predicting fractures.

“Recent evidence derived from carefully conducted research cohort studies in men found that falls increase fracture risk independent of FRAX probability,” they wrote. “However, data are inconsistent with a paucity of evidence demonstrating usefulness of self-reported fall data as collected in routine clinical practice.”

Over a mean observation time of 2.7 years, 3.5% of the study population sustained at least one major osteoporotic fracture, 0.8% experienced a hip fracture, and 4.9% experienced any incident fracture.

The analysis showed an increased risk of fracture with the increasing number of self-reported falls experienced in the previous year. The risk of major osteoporotic fracture was 49% higher among individuals who reported one fall, 74% in those who reported two falls and 2.6-fold higher for those who reported three or more falls in the previous year, compared with those who did not report any falls.

A similar pattern was seen for any incident fracture and hip fracture, with a 3.4-fold higher risk of hip fracture seen in those who reported three or more falls. The study also showed an increase in mortality risk with increasing number of falls.

“We documented that a simple question regarding self-reported falls in the previous year could be easily collected during routine clinical practice and that this information was strongly predictive of short-term fracture risk independent of multiple clinical risk factors including fracture probability using the FRAX tool with BMD [bone mineral density],” the authors wrote.

The analysis did not find an interaction with age or sex and the number of falls.

John A. Kanis, MD, reported grants from Amgen, Lily, and Radius Health. Three other coauthors reported nothing to declare for the context of this article, but reported research grants, speaking honoraria, consultancies from a variety of pharmaceutical companies and organizations. The remaining five coauthors declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Leslie WD et al. Osteoporos Int. 2019 Aug. 2. doi: 10.1007/s00198-019-05106-3.

An 88-year-old man with hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and atrial fibrillation presents with severe cerebral palsy and is diagnosed with a non–ST-elevation MI. He is found to have 90% left anterior descending artery occlusion and receives a drug-eluting stent. His current medications include warfarin, tiotropium, amlodipine, aspirin, and lisinopril. What anticoagulant therapy should he receive?

A) Clopidogrel, warfarin, and aspirin

B) Clopidogrel and aspirin

C) Clopidogrel and warfarin

D) Warfarin

E) Warfarin and aspirin

This issue comes up frequently with our patients with atrial fibrillation who are on anticoagulation, then have a coronary event and have a stent placed. What is the best approach to anticoagulation? I think for this patient adding clopidogrel, continuing warfarin, and stopping aspirin would be the best of the options presented.

Elderly patients have a higher risk of bleeding. They also have a greater chance of accumulating cardiovascular disease (atrial fibrillation, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and valvular disease) that requires anticoagulation. Dewilde et al. studied the difference in bleeding risk in patients who were on oral anticoagulants who then underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention.¹ Patients were assigned clopidogrel alone or clopidogrel plus aspirin in addition to their oral anticoagulant (warfarin). There was a significant increase in all-cause mortality in the patients who received clopidogrel plus aspirin (P = .027), and no significant difference in cardiac mortality between the two groups. There was a much higher risk of bleeding (44.4%) in the patients receiving triple therapy, compared with the double-therapy group (19.4%; P less than .0001).

In a large meta-analysis of over 7,000 patients by D’Ascenzo et al., there was no difference in thrombotic risk between double and triple therapy, and lower bleeding risk in patients who received double therapy.²

In a recently published article, Lopes et al. looked at the benefits and risks of antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with atrial fibrillation.³ The study included 4,614 patients, all of whom received a P2Y12 inhibitor. In addition, they received either apixaban or warfarin, and either aspirin or placebo. The patients who received apixaban had a lower risk of bleeding than those receiving warfarin (P less than .001), and those receiving aspirin had a higher risk than those receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 1.89; P less than .001). Patients using the combination of apixaban plus placebo had the lowest event rate per 100 years (16.8), followed by warfarin plus placebo (26.7), then apixaban plus aspirin (33.6), with warfarin plus aspirin having the highest event rate (49.1). The conclusion for the study was that regimens with apixaban without aspirin had less bleeding and hospitalizations without increased ischemic events, compared with regimens of warfarin with or without aspirin.

I think it is best to avoid aspirin in patients who are anticoagulated with warfarin, and likely this extends to Xa inhibitors as well.

Pearl: Avoid using triple anticoagulant therapy by eliminating aspirin.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Dewilde WJ et al. Use of clopidogrel with or without aspirin in patients taking oral anticoagulant therapy and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: An open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2013 Mar 30;381(9872):1107-15.

2. D’Ascenzo F et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and adjusted observational results of use of clopidogrel, aspirin, and oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2015 May 1;115(9):1185-93.

3. Lopes RD et al. Antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or PCI in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380(16):1509-24.

An 88-year-old man with hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and atrial fibrillation presents with severe cerebral palsy and is diagnosed with a non–ST-elevation MI. He is found to have 90% left anterior descending artery occlusion and receives a drug-eluting stent. His current medications include warfarin, tiotropium, amlodipine, aspirin, and lisinopril. What anticoagulant therapy should he receive?

A) Clopidogrel, warfarin, and aspirin

B) Clopidogrel and aspirin

C) Clopidogrel and warfarin

D) Warfarin

E) Warfarin and aspirin

This issue comes up frequently with our patients with atrial fibrillation who are on anticoagulation, then have a coronary event and have a stent placed. What is the best approach to anticoagulation? I think for this patient adding clopidogrel, continuing warfarin, and stopping aspirin would be the best of the options presented.

Elderly patients have a higher risk of bleeding. They also have a greater chance of accumulating cardiovascular disease (atrial fibrillation, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and valvular disease) that requires anticoagulation. Dewilde et al. studied the difference in bleeding risk in patients who were on oral anticoagulants who then underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention.¹ Patients were assigned clopidogrel alone or clopidogrel plus aspirin in addition to their oral anticoagulant (warfarin). There was a significant increase in all-cause mortality in the patients who received clopidogrel plus aspirin (P = .027), and no significant difference in cardiac mortality between the two groups. There was a much higher risk of bleeding (44.4%) in the patients receiving triple therapy, compared with the double-therapy group (19.4%; P less than .0001).

In a large meta-analysis of over 7,000 patients by D’Ascenzo et al., there was no difference in thrombotic risk between double and triple therapy, and lower bleeding risk in patients who received double therapy.²

In a recently published article, Lopes et al. looked at the benefits and risks of antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with atrial fibrillation.³ The study included 4,614 patients, all of whom received a P2Y12 inhibitor. In addition, they received either apixaban or warfarin, and either aspirin or placebo. The patients who received apixaban had a lower risk of bleeding than those receiving warfarin (P less than .001), and those receiving aspirin had a higher risk than those receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 1.89; P less than .001). Patients using the combination of apixaban plus placebo had the lowest event rate per 100 years (16.8), followed by warfarin plus placebo (26.7), then apixaban plus aspirin (33.6), with warfarin plus aspirin having the highest event rate (49.1). The conclusion for the study was that regimens with apixaban without aspirin had less bleeding and hospitalizations without increased ischemic events, compared with regimens of warfarin with or without aspirin.

I think it is best to avoid aspirin in patients who are anticoagulated with warfarin, and likely this extends to Xa inhibitors as well.

Pearl: Avoid using triple anticoagulant therapy by eliminating aspirin.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Dewilde WJ et al. Use of clopidogrel with or without aspirin in patients taking oral anticoagulant therapy and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: An open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2013 Mar 30;381(9872):1107-15.

2. D’Ascenzo F et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and adjusted observational results of use of clopidogrel, aspirin, and oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2015 May 1;115(9):1185-93.

3. Lopes RD et al. Antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or PCI in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380(16):1509-24.

An 88-year-old man with hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and atrial fibrillation presents with severe cerebral palsy and is diagnosed with a non–ST-elevation MI. He is found to have 90% left anterior descending artery occlusion and receives a drug-eluting stent. His current medications include warfarin, tiotropium, amlodipine, aspirin, and lisinopril. What anticoagulant therapy should he receive?

A) Clopidogrel, warfarin, and aspirin

B) Clopidogrel and aspirin

C) Clopidogrel and warfarin

D) Warfarin

E) Warfarin and aspirin

This issue comes up frequently with our patients with atrial fibrillation who are on anticoagulation, then have a coronary event and have a stent placed. What is the best approach to anticoagulation? I think for this patient adding clopidogrel, continuing warfarin, and stopping aspirin would be the best of the options presented.

Elderly patients have a higher risk of bleeding. They also have a greater chance of accumulating cardiovascular disease (atrial fibrillation, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and valvular disease) that requires anticoagulation. Dewilde et al. studied the difference in bleeding risk in patients who were on oral anticoagulants who then underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention.¹ Patients were assigned clopidogrel alone or clopidogrel plus aspirin in addition to their oral anticoagulant (warfarin). There was a significant increase in all-cause mortality in the patients who received clopidogrel plus aspirin (P = .027), and no significant difference in cardiac mortality between the two groups. There was a much higher risk of bleeding (44.4%) in the patients receiving triple therapy, compared with the double-therapy group (19.4%; P less than .0001).

In a large meta-analysis of over 7,000 patients by D’Ascenzo et al., there was no difference in thrombotic risk between double and triple therapy, and lower bleeding risk in patients who received double therapy.²

In a recently published article, Lopes et al. looked at the benefits and risks of antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with atrial fibrillation.³ The study included 4,614 patients, all of whom received a P2Y12 inhibitor. In addition, they received either apixaban or warfarin, and either aspirin or placebo. The patients who received apixaban had a lower risk of bleeding than those receiving warfarin (P less than .001), and those receiving aspirin had a higher risk than those receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 1.89; P less than .001). Patients using the combination of apixaban plus placebo had the lowest event rate per 100 years (16.8), followed by warfarin plus placebo (26.7), then apixaban plus aspirin (33.6), with warfarin plus aspirin having the highest event rate (49.1). The conclusion for the study was that regimens with apixaban without aspirin had less bleeding and hospitalizations without increased ischemic events, compared with regimens of warfarin with or without aspirin.

I think it is best to avoid aspirin in patients who are anticoagulated with warfarin, and likely this extends to Xa inhibitors as well.

Pearl: Avoid using triple anticoagulant therapy by eliminating aspirin.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Dewilde WJ et al. Use of clopidogrel with or without aspirin in patients taking oral anticoagulant therapy and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: An open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2013 Mar 30;381(9872):1107-15.

2. D’Ascenzo F et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and adjusted observational results of use of clopidogrel, aspirin, and oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2015 May 1;115(9):1185-93.

3. Lopes RD et al. Antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or PCI in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380(16):1509-24.

LOS ANGELES – Benzodiazepines and hypnotics, including the so-called “Z drugs,” don’t significantly increase the pathological features typical of Alzheimer’s disease but long-term users may experience some neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis, Chris Fox, MD, reported at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

The nucleus basalis is rich in cholinergic neurons and associated with arousing stimuli, including positive and aversive appetite, sustained attention, and the interplay of reality and visual perception.

“Neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis offers mechanisms for the impact of benzodiazepine and anticholinergic drug use on the aging brain and highlights important areas for future research,” said Dr. Fox, professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, England.

“The risk [for taking a Z drug] in the United Kingdom is high, with about 7.5 million older adults using potentially inappropriately prescribed anticholinergic and/or Z-drug medications. Despite well-documented cognitive impairment associated with these medicines, hypnotics are still used for long durations and exceed the recommended limits,” Dr. Fox said. “There’s no association with better cognition, quality of life, or improved behavior when they are given to people with dementia. In fact, we’ve seen a 60% increased risk of hip fractures – an increase from a 3% to a 15% yearly risk.”

Dr. Fox and colleagues studied the brains of 337 subjects who were included in the U.K. Medical Research Council’s Cognitive Function and Ageing Studies (CFAS). The study was intended to explore the incidence of dementia in the United Kingdom, examine incidence variation among regions, and explore factors increasing dementia risk and rate of progression.

The first study, which began in 1989 and lasted until 2015, followed subjects older than 65 years for up to 12 years. Each subject was regularly interviewed and underwent cognitive testing about every 1.5 years. Benzodiazepine use was considered an especially important aspect, because the medications are frequently used in the elderly and seem linked to injuries and cognitive status at last follow-up.

In CFAS, 21% of subjects reported at least one incidence of anticholinergic use, and 12% reported recurrent use. Another 17% reported any hypnotic use, and 11% reported recurrent use. The main indications were as an antidepressant (13%), for urological issues (4%), as antiparkinsonism drugs (1%), as antipsychotics (3%), and as antihistamines (3%). Overall, 18% reported concurrent use of benzodiazepines and hypnotics. At time of death, 46% had a diagnosis of dementia.

“Those reporting benzodiazepine use were more likely to be women and to have depression or sleep problems,” Dr. Fox noted, although he didn’t give specific hazard ratios. After adjustment for numerous factors, including age, sex, stroke, hypertension, depression, anxiety, asthma, Parkinson’s disease, duration of sleep problems, education, and smoking, he found no statistically increased risk of amyloid brain plaques or tau tangles, the pathologic hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease.

Anticholinergic use was associated with a significant 60% reduction in cortical atrophy (odds ratio, 0.40) and recurrent use with a 61% reduction in amyloid angiopathy (OR, 0.39).

However, both medication classes were associated with greater neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis. Recurrent use of anticholinergic drugs increased neuronal loss by 300% (OR, 4.12), while any use nearly tripled it (OR, 2.87). Recurrent use of benzodiazepines was associated with increased neuronal loss in the region (OR, 3.76) as well. However, these associations did not reach statistical significance. But there was a statistically significant association with any use of benzodiazepines and neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis (OR, 6.84).

“We did find greater neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis associated with benzodiazepine and anticholinergic drugs use,” Dr. Fox said. “The nucleus basalis is rich in neurons that stimulate the cholinergic system of the neocortex. Neuronal loss in this region is thought to occur in the early stages of Alzheimer’s. Other studies have suggested that volume loss in the basal forebrain cholinergic site leads to widespread cortical atrophy in patients with mild cognitive impairment. We did not observe the widespread cortical atrophy, however.

“Given that the strongest associations were observed for benzodiazepines and neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis, it may be that the drugs were prescribed to treat the symptoms of ‘cholinergic deficiency syndrome,’ Our findings suggest that the symptoms of dementia lead to an increase of benzodiazepines as opposed to the medications actually causing Alzheimer’s disease,” he said.

Dr. Fox reported no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Fox C et al. AAIC 2019, Abstract 34017.

LOS ANGELES – Benzodiazepines and hypnotics, including the so-called “Z drugs,” don’t significantly increase the pathological features typical of Alzheimer’s disease but long-term users may experience some neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis, Chris Fox, MD, reported at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

The nucleus basalis is rich in cholinergic neurons and associated with arousing stimuli, including positive and aversive appetite, sustained attention, and the interplay of reality and visual perception.

“Neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis offers mechanisms for the impact of benzodiazepine and anticholinergic drug use on the aging brain and highlights important areas for future research,” said Dr. Fox, professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, England.

“The risk [for taking a Z drug] in the United Kingdom is high, with about 7.5 million older adults using potentially inappropriately prescribed anticholinergic and/or Z-drug medications. Despite well-documented cognitive impairment associated with these medicines, hypnotics are still used for long durations and exceed the recommended limits,” Dr. Fox said. “There’s no association with better cognition, quality of life, or improved behavior when they are given to people with dementia. In fact, we’ve seen a 60% increased risk of hip fractures – an increase from a 3% to a 15% yearly risk.”

Dr. Fox and colleagues studied the brains of 337 subjects who were included in the U.K. Medical Research Council’s Cognitive Function and Ageing Studies (CFAS). The study was intended to explore the incidence of dementia in the United Kingdom, examine incidence variation among regions, and explore factors increasing dementia risk and rate of progression.

The first study, which began in 1989 and lasted until 2015, followed subjects older than 65 years for up to 12 years. Each subject was regularly interviewed and underwent cognitive testing about every 1.5 years. Benzodiazepine use was considered an especially important aspect, because the medications are frequently used in the elderly and seem linked to injuries and cognitive status at last follow-up.

In CFAS, 21% of subjects reported at least one incidence of anticholinergic use, and 12% reported recurrent use. Another 17% reported any hypnotic use, and 11% reported recurrent use. The main indications were as an antidepressant (13%), for urological issues (4%), as antiparkinsonism drugs (1%), as antipsychotics (3%), and as antihistamines (3%). Overall, 18% reported concurrent use of benzodiazepines and hypnotics. At time of death, 46% had a diagnosis of dementia.

“Those reporting benzodiazepine use were more likely to be women and to have depression or sleep problems,” Dr. Fox noted, although he didn’t give specific hazard ratios. After adjustment for numerous factors, including age, sex, stroke, hypertension, depression, anxiety, asthma, Parkinson’s disease, duration of sleep problems, education, and smoking, he found no statistically increased risk of amyloid brain plaques or tau tangles, the pathologic hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease.

Anticholinergic use was associated with a significant 60% reduction in cortical atrophy (odds ratio, 0.40) and recurrent use with a 61% reduction in amyloid angiopathy (OR, 0.39).

However, both medication classes were associated with greater neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis. Recurrent use of anticholinergic drugs increased neuronal loss by 300% (OR, 4.12), while any use nearly tripled it (OR, 2.87). Recurrent use of benzodiazepines was associated with increased neuronal loss in the region (OR, 3.76) as well. However, these associations did not reach statistical significance. But there was a statistically significant association with any use of benzodiazepines and neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis (OR, 6.84).

“We did find greater neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis associated with benzodiazepine and anticholinergic drugs use,” Dr. Fox said. “The nucleus basalis is rich in neurons that stimulate the cholinergic system of the neocortex. Neuronal loss in this region is thought to occur in the early stages of Alzheimer’s. Other studies have suggested that volume loss in the basal forebrain cholinergic site leads to widespread cortical atrophy in patients with mild cognitive impairment. We did not observe the widespread cortical atrophy, however.

“Given that the strongest associations were observed for benzodiazepines and neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis, it may be that the drugs were prescribed to treat the symptoms of ‘cholinergic deficiency syndrome,’ Our findings suggest that the symptoms of dementia lead to an increase of benzodiazepines as opposed to the medications actually causing Alzheimer’s disease,” he said.

Dr. Fox reported no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Fox C et al. AAIC 2019, Abstract 34017.

LOS ANGELES – Benzodiazepines and hypnotics, including the so-called “Z drugs,” don’t significantly increase the pathological features typical of Alzheimer’s disease but long-term users may experience some neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis, Chris Fox, MD, reported at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

The nucleus basalis is rich in cholinergic neurons and associated with arousing stimuli, including positive and aversive appetite, sustained attention, and the interplay of reality and visual perception.

“Neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis offers mechanisms for the impact of benzodiazepine and anticholinergic drug use on the aging brain and highlights important areas for future research,” said Dr. Fox, professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, England.

“The risk [for taking a Z drug] in the United Kingdom is high, with about 7.5 million older adults using potentially inappropriately prescribed anticholinergic and/or Z-drug medications. Despite well-documented cognitive impairment associated with these medicines, hypnotics are still used for long durations and exceed the recommended limits,” Dr. Fox said. “There’s no association with better cognition, quality of life, or improved behavior when they are given to people with dementia. In fact, we’ve seen a 60% increased risk of hip fractures – an increase from a 3% to a 15% yearly risk.”

Dr. Fox and colleagues studied the brains of 337 subjects who were included in the U.K. Medical Research Council’s Cognitive Function and Ageing Studies (CFAS). The study was intended to explore the incidence of dementia in the United Kingdom, examine incidence variation among regions, and explore factors increasing dementia risk and rate of progression.

The first study, which began in 1989 and lasted until 2015, followed subjects older than 65 years for up to 12 years. Each subject was regularly interviewed and underwent cognitive testing about every 1.5 years. Benzodiazepine use was considered an especially important aspect, because the medications are frequently used in the elderly and seem linked to injuries and cognitive status at last follow-up.

In CFAS, 21% of subjects reported at least one incidence of anticholinergic use, and 12% reported recurrent use. Another 17% reported any hypnotic use, and 11% reported recurrent use. The main indications were as an antidepressant (13%), for urological issues (4%), as antiparkinsonism drugs (1%), as antipsychotics (3%), and as antihistamines (3%). Overall, 18% reported concurrent use of benzodiazepines and hypnotics. At time of death, 46% had a diagnosis of dementia.

“Those reporting benzodiazepine use were more likely to be women and to have depression or sleep problems,” Dr. Fox noted, although he didn’t give specific hazard ratios. After adjustment for numerous factors, including age, sex, stroke, hypertension, depression, anxiety, asthma, Parkinson’s disease, duration of sleep problems, education, and smoking, he found no statistically increased risk of amyloid brain plaques or tau tangles, the pathologic hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease.

Anticholinergic use was associated with a significant 60% reduction in cortical atrophy (odds ratio, 0.40) and recurrent use with a 61% reduction in amyloid angiopathy (OR, 0.39).

However, both medication classes were associated with greater neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis. Recurrent use of anticholinergic drugs increased neuronal loss by 300% (OR, 4.12), while any use nearly tripled it (OR, 2.87). Recurrent use of benzodiazepines was associated with increased neuronal loss in the region (OR, 3.76) as well. However, these associations did not reach statistical significance. But there was a statistically significant association with any use of benzodiazepines and neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis (OR, 6.84).

“We did find greater neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis associated with benzodiazepine and anticholinergic drugs use,” Dr. Fox said. “The nucleus basalis is rich in neurons that stimulate the cholinergic system of the neocortex. Neuronal loss in this region is thought to occur in the early stages of Alzheimer’s. Other studies have suggested that volume loss in the basal forebrain cholinergic site leads to widespread cortical atrophy in patients with mild cognitive impairment. We did not observe the widespread cortical atrophy, however.

“Given that the strongest associations were observed for benzodiazepines and neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis, it may be that the drugs were prescribed to treat the symptoms of ‘cholinergic deficiency syndrome,’ Our findings suggest that the symptoms of dementia lead to an increase of benzodiazepines as opposed to the medications actually causing Alzheimer’s disease,” he said.

Dr. Fox reported no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Fox C et al. AAIC 2019, Abstract 34017.

The patient grabbed my attention as I glanced through our clinic schedule. It was his age: He was 99 years old and scheduled for eye surgery. The plastic surgery resident’s note read: “Patient understands that this would involve surgery under general anesthesia and is agreeable to moving forward...Extremely high risk of anesthesia emphasized.”

I reviewed the patient’s history. At baseline, he had severe pulmonary hypertension, severe aortic stenosis (AS), diastolic heart failure, chronic atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate of 26 mL/min [normal is > 60 mL/min]), anemia (hematocrit 26%), and a standing do not resuscitate (DNR) order. His maximal daily exercise was walking slowly across a room, primarily limited by joint pain. Recent geropsychiatry notes indicated mild cognitive impairment. The anesthesia record from an urgent hip fracture repair 7 months before under general anesthesia was unremarkable.

I phoned the attending plastic surgeon. Our conversation was as follows:

“Hi, I’m about to see a 99-year-old patient with a DNR who is scheduled for resection of an eyelid tumor. His medical history makes me nervous. Are you sure this is a good idea?”“Hmmm, 99-year-old…okay, that’s right,” he responded. “He has an invasive squamous that could become a big problem. The actual procedure is under 10 minutes. Waiting for the pathology report will be the longest part of the procedure.”

“Can it be done under local?” I asked.

“Yes,” he replied.

“Okay, I’ll talk to him and call you back.”

I found the patient in the waiting room, flanked by his 2 daughters and invited them into the clinic room. After introductions, I began asking whether they had any questions about the anesthesia. By midsentence a daughter was prompting him to discuss what happened “last time.” He described a history of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stemming from his hip surgery, which he blamed squarely on the anesthesia. His emotion was evident in the gathering pauses. “I hate that I am so emotional since they kept me awake during my surgery.”

Through the fog of multiple accounts, it became clear that he was traumatized by the loss of control during the administration of and emergence from the anesthesia.

“They told me it was only oxygen,” he said. “They lied. There was a taste to it…I was awake and skinned alive…They said I was a monster when I woke up thrashing.” He went on, explaining that in the recovery room “there were 2 people bothering me, man-handling me, asking me questions.”

One of his daughters showed me pictures of bruises on his face from ripping off the mask and pulling out the breathing tube. They were visibly upset by the memory of his postoperative combativeness and paranoia. The note written by the orthopedic surgery resident on the day after surgery stated succinctly, “Doing well, had some delirium from anesthesia overnight.” Subsequent geropsychiatry home visits attested to intrusive thoughts, flashbacks, and nightmares from his time as a combat soldier in World War II, 65 years in the past.

“It took me months…months to recover,” he said.

He was in the mood to reminisce, however, perhaps a willful distraction. He had the floor for at least 30 minutes, during which I spoke about 5 sentences. With every sad story he told there was a happy, humorous one, such as meeting his future wife while on leave in New Zealand during the war, recalled down to exact dates. And another story:
 

There we were in New Caledonia. All our supplies went out to replace what sank on [USS] Coolidge, including a lot of food. Well, there were deer on the island. So we took out a truck and a rifle and wouldn’t you know we came upon a roadblock in the form of a big steer. We figured it looked enough like a deer. My buddy shot it dead with one shot. We dressed it and loaded it into the jeep. Hardly before we even got back to the mess hall, the officers’ cook came sniffing around. He and our captain agreed it was easily the biggest deer they’d ever seen and appropriated it to the officers’ mess. Next day the CO [commanding officer] of the whole outfit came by and announced it was the best tasting ‘venison’ he’d ever had. I heard the farmer got paid a pretty penny for that steer. I didn’t get a damn bite.

He delivered this last bit with relish.

When the conversation returned to anesthesia, I read them the record of his hip fracture repair. I explained that on the face of it, the report seemed uneventful. One daughter asked astute questions about his awareness. I explained that although awareness during general anesthesia is possible, it seemed from the record, he’d had plenty of anesthesia during the case and that there is always less at the beginning and end, the periods that apparently had caused him distress. I also explained that most studies report the incidence of true awareness as at most 1 out of thousands of events and that he had none of the established risk factors for it, such as female gender, young age, chronic substance abuse, cardiac and obstetric surgery, and history of awareness.¹

The other daughter wondered why he was so agitated afterward. I recited data on the frequency of postoperative delirium in elderly patients but explained that the range is wide, depending on the study and population, from about 1% in elderly patients undergoing ambulatory surgery to 65% for open aortic surgery.^2,3 I added that their father had 2 of the strongest risk factors for delirium, advanced age and cognitive impairment.³ Only after airing each question about the hip surgery in detail were they ready to discuss the eye surgery.

He started that conversation with the right question: “Do I really need it?”

I quoted my surgical colleague’s concern. I told him that, should he opt to undergo the surgery, I was confident that this time around his experience would be different from the last.

“If you’re okay with it, all you need is some numbing medicine from the surgeon; you won’t need any anesthesia from me.”

I walked step-by-step through what they could expect on the day of surgery. Maintaining control was of obvious importance to him. He felt comfortable going forward. His daughters intuited that less would be more for a quick recovery.

We then addressed the DNR directive. I acknowledged his absolute right to self-determination and explained that the need for resuscitation is, at times, a consequence of the surgery and anesthesia. I reassured them that our plan made resuscitation and intubation highly unlikely. They also asked to use any interventions necessary to restart his heart if it should stop beating. I documented their decision in my notes and communicated it to the surgical team. We had talked for 90 minutes.

I met the patient and his daughters on the day of surgery in the preoperative holding area. I inserted an IV, applied electrocardiography leads, and affixed a pulse oximeter and a noninvasive blood pressure cuff. In the operating room (OR) we took time to place his 99-year-old joints into, as he said, the “least worst” position. He tolerated the injection of the local by the surgeon perfectly well. We were in the OR for 3 hours, during which he taught me a fair amount about boating and outboard engines among other things. Pathology reported clean margins. He was discharged home soon after and had an uneventful recovery.

Patient-First Approach

A core competency of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education for an anesthesia residency is the Interpersonal and Communication Skills program. A comprehensive discussion of communication is far beyond the scope here. But not surprisingly, deficient communication between physicians and patients can cause emotional distress, significant dissatisfaction among family members, and negative patient judgment of how well we communicate.^4-6 These observations are particularly true in our increasingly elderly surgical population, in which both surgeons and anesthesiologists often feel unequal to the task of discussing concepts such as code status.^7,8

In our practice and in residency training, the preoperative clinic often is the location where patient/provider communication occurs. Here we consider the latest American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, examine airways, review electrocardiograms, and formulate plans agreeable to and understood by our anxious patients and their families. The potent anxiolytic effect of a preoperative visit by an anesthesiologist is well established.⁹ Anxiety about surgery is a risk factor for impaired decision making before surgery.¹⁰ And surgery is traumatic—as many as 7.6% of postoperative patients experience symptoms consistent with PTSD attributable to the surgery, placing it on a par with being mugged (8.0%).^11,12

The patient in this case presented several communication challenges even absent his revelation of prior traumatic experience with anesthesia. He was elderly, anxious, and had multiple comorbidities. He had mild cognitive impairment and required a code status discussion. There also were the clinical challenges—navigating a 99-year-old with severe aortic stenosis and a right ventricular systolic pressure > 90 mm Hg through a general anesthetic gave me a sinking feeling.

He was fortunate that the procedure could be done with local anesthesia, mitigating his risk of cognitive dysfunction, including delirium. He also was fortunate in that his anesthesiologist and surgeon had created a collaborative, patient-first approach and that his US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinic had the time, space, and staffing to accommodate an unexpected 90-minute visit. A big investment in communication, mainly my keeping quiet, made the intraoperative management simple. Such is life in an integrated health care system without financial incentives for high-volume care—and another reminder that VA physicians are blessed to guide patients through some of the most vulnerable and distressing moments of their lives.

Postscript

During the preparation of this manuscript, the patient passed away at the age of 100. His obituary was consistent with what I had learned about him and his family during our 2 encounters: a long successful career in local industry; extensive involvement in his community; an avid sportsman; and nearly 30 grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and great-great grandchildren. But there was one more detail that never came up during my extensive discussion with him and his daughters: He was awarded the Purple Heart for his service in World War II.

The patient grabbed my attention as I glanced through our clinic schedule. It was his age: He was 99 years old and scheduled for eye surgery. The plastic surgery resident’s note read: “Patient understands that this would involve surgery under general anesthesia and is agreeable to moving forward...Extremely high risk of anesthesia emphasized.”

I reviewed the patient’s history. At baseline, he had severe pulmonary hypertension, severe aortic stenosis (AS), diastolic heart failure, chronic atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate of 26 mL/min [normal is > 60 mL/min]), anemia (hematocrit 26%), and a standing do not resuscitate (DNR) order. His maximal daily exercise was walking slowly across a room, primarily limited by joint pain. Recent geropsychiatry notes indicated mild cognitive impairment. The anesthesia record from an urgent hip fracture repair 7 months before under general anesthesia was unremarkable.

I phoned the attending plastic surgeon. Our conversation was as follows:

“Hi, I’m about to see a 99-year-old patient with a DNR who is scheduled for resection of an eyelid tumor. His medical history makes me nervous. Are you sure this is a good idea?”“Hmmm, 99-year-old…okay, that’s right,” he responded. “He has an invasive squamous that could become a big problem. The actual procedure is under 10 minutes. Waiting for the pathology report will be the longest part of the procedure.”

“Can it be done under local?” I asked.

“Yes,” he replied.

“Okay, I’ll talk to him and call you back.”

I found the patient in the waiting room, flanked by his 2 daughters and invited them into the clinic room. After introductions, I began asking whether they had any questions about the anesthesia. By midsentence a daughter was prompting him to discuss what happened “last time.” He described a history of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stemming from his hip surgery, which he blamed squarely on the anesthesia. His emotion was evident in the gathering pauses. “I hate that I am so emotional since they kept me awake during my surgery.”

Through the fog of multiple accounts, it became clear that he was traumatized by the loss of control during the administration of and emergence from the anesthesia.

“They told me it was only oxygen,” he said. “They lied. There was a taste to it…I was awake and skinned alive…They said I was a monster when I woke up thrashing.” He went on, explaining that in the recovery room “there were 2 people bothering me, man-handling me, asking me questions.”

One of his daughters showed me pictures of bruises on his face from ripping off the mask and pulling out the breathing tube. They were visibly upset by the memory of his postoperative combativeness and paranoia. The note written by the orthopedic surgery resident on the day after surgery stated succinctly, “Doing well, had some delirium from anesthesia overnight.” Subsequent geropsychiatry home visits attested to intrusive thoughts, flashbacks, and nightmares from his time as a combat soldier in World War II, 65 years in the past.

“It took me months…months to recover,” he said.

He was in the mood to reminisce, however, perhaps a willful distraction. He had the floor for at least 30 minutes, during which I spoke about 5 sentences. With every sad story he told there was a happy, humorous one, such as meeting his future wife while on leave in New Zealand during the war, recalled down to exact dates. And another story:
 

There we were in New Caledonia. All our supplies went out to replace what sank on [USS] Coolidge, including a lot of food. Well, there were deer on the island. So we took out a truck and a rifle and wouldn’t you know we came upon a roadblock in the form of a big steer. We figured it looked enough like a deer. My buddy shot it dead with one shot. We dressed it and loaded it into the jeep. Hardly before we even got back to the mess hall, the officers’ cook came sniffing around. He and our captain agreed it was easily the biggest deer they’d ever seen and appropriated it to the officers’ mess. Next day the CO [commanding officer] of the whole outfit came by and announced it was the best tasting ‘venison’ he’d ever had. I heard the farmer got paid a pretty penny for that steer. I didn’t get a damn bite.

He delivered this last bit with relish.

When the conversation returned to anesthesia, I read them the record of his hip fracture repair. I explained that on the face of it, the report seemed uneventful. One daughter asked astute questions about his awareness. I explained that although awareness during general anesthesia is possible, it seemed from the record, he’d had plenty of anesthesia during the case and that there is always less at the beginning and end, the periods that apparently had caused him distress. I also explained that most studies report the incidence of true awareness as at most 1 out of thousands of events and that he had none of the established risk factors for it, such as female gender, young age, chronic substance abuse, cardiac and obstetric surgery, and history of awareness.¹

The other daughter wondered why he was so agitated afterward. I recited data on the frequency of postoperative delirium in elderly patients but explained that the range is wide, depending on the study and population, from about 1% in elderly patients undergoing ambulatory surgery to 65% for open aortic surgery.^2,3 I added that their father had 2 of the strongest risk factors for delirium, advanced age and cognitive impairment.³ Only after airing each question about the hip surgery in detail were they ready to discuss the eye surgery.

He started that conversation with the right question: “Do I really need it?”

I quoted my surgical colleague’s concern. I told him that, should he opt to undergo the surgery, I was confident that this time around his experience would be different from the last.

“If you’re okay with it, all you need is some numbing medicine from the surgeon; you won’t need any anesthesia from me.”

I walked step-by-step through what they could expect on the day of surgery. Maintaining control was of obvious importance to him. He felt comfortable going forward. His daughters intuited that less would be more for a quick recovery.

We then addressed the DNR directive. I acknowledged his absolute right to self-determination and explained that the need for resuscitation is, at times, a consequence of the surgery and anesthesia. I reassured them that our plan made resuscitation and intubation highly unlikely. They also asked to use any interventions necessary to restart his heart if it should stop beating. I documented their decision in my notes and communicated it to the surgical team. We had talked for 90 minutes.

I met the patient and his daughters on the day of surgery in the preoperative holding area. I inserted an IV, applied electrocardiography leads, and affixed a pulse oximeter and a noninvasive blood pressure cuff. In the operating room (OR) we took time to place his 99-year-old joints into, as he said, the “least worst” position. He tolerated the injection of the local by the surgeon perfectly well. We were in the OR for 3 hours, during which he taught me a fair amount about boating and outboard engines among other things. Pathology reported clean margins. He was discharged home soon after and had an uneventful recovery.

Patient-First Approach

A core competency of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education for an anesthesia residency is the Interpersonal and Communication Skills program. A comprehensive discussion of communication is far beyond the scope here. But not surprisingly, deficient communication between physicians and patients can cause emotional distress, significant dissatisfaction among family members, and negative patient judgment of how well we communicate.^4-6 These observations are particularly true in our increasingly elderly surgical population, in which both surgeons and anesthesiologists often feel unequal to the task of discussing concepts such as code status.^7,8

In our practice and in residency training, the preoperative clinic often is the location where patient/provider communication occurs. Here we consider the latest American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, examine airways, review electrocardiograms, and formulate plans agreeable to and understood by our anxious patients and their families. The potent anxiolytic effect of a preoperative visit by an anesthesiologist is well established.⁹ Anxiety about surgery is a risk factor for impaired decision making before surgery.¹⁰ And surgery is traumatic—as many as 7.6% of postoperative patients experience symptoms consistent with PTSD attributable to the surgery, placing it on a par with being mugged (8.0%).^11,12

The patient in this case presented several communication challenges even absent his revelation of prior traumatic experience with anesthesia. He was elderly, anxious, and had multiple comorbidities. He had mild cognitive impairment and required a code status discussion. There also were the clinical challenges—navigating a 99-year-old with severe aortic stenosis and a right ventricular systolic pressure > 90 mm Hg through a general anesthetic gave me a sinking feeling.

He was fortunate that the procedure could be done with local anesthesia, mitigating his risk of cognitive dysfunction, including delirium. He also was fortunate in that his anesthesiologist and surgeon had created a collaborative, patient-first approach and that his US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinic had the time, space, and staffing to accommodate an unexpected 90-minute visit. A big investment in communication, mainly my keeping quiet, made the intraoperative management simple. Such is life in an integrated health care system without financial incentives for high-volume care—and another reminder that VA physicians are blessed to guide patients through some of the most vulnerable and distressing moments of their lives.

Postscript

During the preparation of this manuscript, the patient passed away at the age of 100. His obituary was consistent with what I had learned about him and his family during our 2 encounters: a long successful career in local industry; extensive involvement in his community; an avid sportsman; and nearly 30 grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and great-great grandchildren. But there was one more detail that never came up during my extensive discussion with him and his daughters: He was awarded the Purple Heart for his service in World War II.

The patient grabbed my attention as I glanced through our clinic schedule. It was his age: He was 99 years old and scheduled for eye surgery. The plastic surgery resident’s note read: “Patient understands that this would involve surgery under general anesthesia and is agreeable to moving forward...Extremely high risk of anesthesia emphasized.”

I reviewed the patient’s history. At baseline, he had severe pulmonary hypertension, severe aortic stenosis (AS), diastolic heart failure, chronic atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate of 26 mL/min [normal is > 60 mL/min]), anemia (hematocrit 26%), and a standing do not resuscitate (DNR) order. His maximal daily exercise was walking slowly across a room, primarily limited by joint pain. Recent geropsychiatry notes indicated mild cognitive impairment. The anesthesia record from an urgent hip fracture repair 7 months before under general anesthesia was unremarkable.

I phoned the attending plastic surgeon. Our conversation was as follows:

“Hi, I’m about to see a 99-year-old patient with a DNR who is scheduled for resection of an eyelid tumor. His medical history makes me nervous. Are you sure this is a good idea?”“Hmmm, 99-year-old…okay, that’s right,” he responded. “He has an invasive squamous that could become a big problem. The actual procedure is under 10 minutes. Waiting for the pathology report will be the longest part of the procedure.”

“Can it be done under local?” I asked.

“Yes,” he replied.

“Okay, I’ll talk to him and call you back.”

I found the patient in the waiting room, flanked by his 2 daughters and invited them into the clinic room. After introductions, I began asking whether they had any questions about the anesthesia. By midsentence a daughter was prompting him to discuss what happened “last time.” He described a history of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stemming from his hip surgery, which he blamed squarely on the anesthesia. His emotion was evident in the gathering pauses. “I hate that I am so emotional since they kept me awake during my surgery.”

Through the fog of multiple accounts, it became clear that he was traumatized by the loss of control during the administration of and emergence from the anesthesia.

“They told me it was only oxygen,” he said. “They lied. There was a taste to it…I was awake and skinned alive…They said I was a monster when I woke up thrashing.” He went on, explaining that in the recovery room “there were 2 people bothering me, man-handling me, asking me questions.”

One of his daughters showed me pictures of bruises on his face from ripping off the mask and pulling out the breathing tube. They were visibly upset by the memory of his postoperative combativeness and paranoia. The note written by the orthopedic surgery resident on the day after surgery stated succinctly, “Doing well, had some delirium from anesthesia overnight.” Subsequent geropsychiatry home visits attested to intrusive thoughts, flashbacks, and nightmares from his time as a combat soldier in World War II, 65 years in the past.

“It took me months…months to recover,” he said.

He was in the mood to reminisce, however, perhaps a willful distraction. He had the floor for at least 30 minutes, during which I spoke about 5 sentences. With every sad story he told there was a happy, humorous one, such as meeting his future wife while on leave in New Zealand during the war, recalled down to exact dates. And another story:
 

There we were in New Caledonia. All our supplies went out to replace what sank on [USS] Coolidge, including a lot of food. Well, there were deer on the island. So we took out a truck and a rifle and wouldn’t you know we came upon a roadblock in the form of a big steer. We figured it looked enough like a deer. My buddy shot it dead with one shot. We dressed it and loaded it into the jeep. Hardly before we even got back to the mess hall, the officers’ cook came sniffing around. He and our captain agreed it was easily the biggest deer they’d ever seen and appropriated it to the officers’ mess. Next day the CO [commanding officer] of the whole outfit came by and announced it was the best tasting ‘venison’ he’d ever had. I heard the farmer got paid a pretty penny for that steer. I didn’t get a damn bite.

He delivered this last bit with relish.

When the conversation returned to anesthesia, I read them the record of his hip fracture repair. I explained that on the face of it, the report seemed uneventful. One daughter asked astute questions about his awareness. I explained that although awareness during general anesthesia is possible, it seemed from the record, he’d had plenty of anesthesia during the case and that there is always less at the beginning and end, the periods that apparently had caused him distress. I also explained that most studies report the incidence of true awareness as at most 1 out of thousands of events and that he had none of the established risk factors for it, such as female gender, young age, chronic substance abuse, cardiac and obstetric surgery, and history of awareness.¹

The other daughter wondered why he was so agitated afterward. I recited data on the frequency of postoperative delirium in elderly patients but explained that the range is wide, depending on the study and population, from about 1% in elderly patients undergoing ambulatory surgery to 65% for open aortic surgery.^2,3 I added that their father had 2 of the strongest risk factors for delirium, advanced age and cognitive impairment.³ Only after airing each question about the hip surgery in detail were they ready to discuss the eye surgery.

He started that conversation with the right question: “Do I really need it?”

I quoted my surgical colleague’s concern. I told him that, should he opt to undergo the surgery, I was confident that this time around his experience would be different from the last.

“If you’re okay with it, all you need is some numbing medicine from the surgeon; you won’t need any anesthesia from me.”

I walked step-by-step through what they could expect on the day of surgery. Maintaining control was of obvious importance to him. He felt comfortable going forward. His daughters intuited that less would be more for a quick recovery.

We then addressed the DNR directive. I acknowledged his absolute right to self-determination and explained that the need for resuscitation is, at times, a consequence of the surgery and anesthesia. I reassured them that our plan made resuscitation and intubation highly unlikely. They also asked to use any interventions necessary to restart his heart if it should stop beating. I documented their decision in my notes and communicated it to the surgical team. We had talked for 90 minutes.

I met the patient and his daughters on the day of surgery in the preoperative holding area. I inserted an IV, applied electrocardiography leads, and affixed a pulse oximeter and a noninvasive blood pressure cuff. In the operating room (OR) we took time to place his 99-year-old joints into, as he said, the “least worst” position. He tolerated the injection of the local by the surgeon perfectly well. We were in the OR for 3 hours, during which he taught me a fair amount about boating and outboard engines among other things. Pathology reported clean margins. He was discharged home soon after and had an uneventful recovery.

Patient-First Approach

A core competency of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education for an anesthesia residency is the Interpersonal and Communication Skills program. A comprehensive discussion of communication is far beyond the scope here. But not surprisingly, deficient communication between physicians and patients can cause emotional distress, significant dissatisfaction among family members, and negative patient judgment of how well we communicate.^4-6 These observations are particularly true in our increasingly elderly surgical population, in which both surgeons and anesthesiologists often feel unequal to the task of discussing concepts such as code status.^7,8

In our practice and in residency training, the preoperative clinic often is the location where patient/provider communication occurs. Here we consider the latest American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, examine airways, review electrocardiograms, and formulate plans agreeable to and understood by our anxious patients and their families. The potent anxiolytic effect of a preoperative visit by an anesthesiologist is well established.⁹ Anxiety about surgery is a risk factor for impaired decision making before surgery.¹⁰ And surgery is traumatic—as many as 7.6% of postoperative patients experience symptoms consistent with PTSD attributable to the surgery, placing it on a par with being mugged (8.0%).^11,12

The patient in this case presented several communication challenges even absent his revelation of prior traumatic experience with anesthesia. He was elderly, anxious, and had multiple comorbidities. He had mild cognitive impairment and required a code status discussion. There also were the clinical challenges—navigating a 99-year-old with severe aortic stenosis and a right ventricular systolic pressure > 90 mm Hg through a general anesthetic gave me a sinking feeling.

He was fortunate that the procedure could be done with local anesthesia, mitigating his risk of cognitive dysfunction, including delirium. He also was fortunate in that his anesthesiologist and surgeon had created a collaborative, patient-first approach and that his US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinic had the time, space, and staffing to accommodate an unexpected 90-minute visit. A big investment in communication, mainly my keeping quiet, made the intraoperative management simple. Such is life in an integrated health care system without financial incentives for high-volume care—and another reminder that VA physicians are blessed to guide patients through some of the most vulnerable and distressing moments of their lives.

Postscript

During the preparation of this manuscript, the patient passed away at the age of 100. His obituary was consistent with what I had learned about him and his family during our 2 encounters: a long successful career in local industry; extensive involvement in his community; an avid sportsman; and nearly 30 grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and great-great grandchildren. But there was one more detail that never came up during my extensive discussion with him and his daughters: He was awarded the Purple Heart for his service in World War II.

The need for universal screening for Lynch syndrome in elderly patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) has been questioned, according to results from a retrospective cohort study.

In addition, discontinuing reflex CRC screening for Lynch syndrome in patients over age 80 years could be feasible because of very low efficiency.

“The universal strategy advocates screening all patients with newly diagnosed CRC for Lynch syndrome and has been shown to be the most sensitive method,” wrote Dan Li, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Santa Clara, and colleagues. The findings were published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The researchers studied 3,891 patients with newly diagnosed CRC who were screened for Lynch syndrome from 2011 to 2016. Data were collected from a population-based screening program at Kaiser Permanente Northern California.

“The system provides comprehensive medical care for more than 4 million members across 21 medical centers covering urban, suburban, and semirural areas,” Dr. Li and his colleagues wrote.

To compare universal and age-restricted screening, the team obtained surgical samples of all newly diagnosed CRC tumors and tested them for reflex mismatch repair protein expression using immunohistochemistry.

Subsequently, the age-restricted screening groups were divided into several age categories, ranging from age 50 to 85 years.

The diagnostic yield, defined as the “percentage of patients with pathogenic reflex mismatch repair gene variants among all patients with CRC screened with immunohistochemistry,” was measured and compared with the universal screening technique.

“We calculated the number of patients with CRC who needed to be screened in each age group to identify one case of Lynch syndrome by dividing the number of patients screened in each age group by the number of Lynch syndrome cases diagnosed in that group,” they explained.

After analysis, the researchers detected a total of 63 cases of Lynch syndrome (diagnostic yield, 1.62%) with universal screening, among which 5 (7.9%) were over age 70 years and 1 (1.6%) was over age 80 years.

When patients with CRC who were universally screened were used as the denominator, 58 cases (diagnostic yield, 1.49%) were detected in those with CRC diagnosed at or prior to age 70 years.

In addition, in patients diagnosed at or before age 75 and 80 years, 60 and 62 cases of Lynch syndrome (diagnostic yield, 1.54% and 1.59%) were detected, respectively.

“The incremental diagnostic yield decreased substantially after age 70 to 75 years,” they wrote.

With these findings, Dr. Li and his colleagues suggested that cessation of screening for Lynch syndrome post age 80 years may be acceptable, especially in resource-limited environments.

“Using age as the primary criterion is a simple method of selecting patients for Lynch syndrome screening in clinical practice,” they added.

In accordance with previous studies, a major reduction in Lynch syndrome incidence has been noted among elderly populations.

There remains a need for additional studies exploring the effects of diagnosing Lynch syndrome in elderly patients on family members.

The researchers acknowledged a key limitation of the study was that patients who did not finish germline analysis but were eligible for it were excluded from certain measurements. To reduce potential bias, the team conducted a sensitivity analysis, and the findings were negligible with respect to main results.

“Given the geographic variation in the reported prevalence of Lynch syndrome, the diagnostic efficiency of Lynch syndrome screening among elderly populations should be further investigated in other populations,” they concluded.

The study was funded by Kaiser Permanente Northern California. The authors reported financial affiliations with Bayer, Clinical Genomics, Covidien, Exact Sciences, Motus GI, Quorum, Universal DX, and the National Cancer Institute.

SOURCE: Li D et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jun 11. doi: 10.7326/M18-3316.

The need for universal screening for Lynch syndrome in elderly patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) has been questioned, according to results from a retrospective cohort study.

In addition, discontinuing reflex CRC screening for Lynch syndrome in patients over age 80 years could be feasible because of very low efficiency.

“The universal strategy advocates screening all patients with newly diagnosed CRC for Lynch syndrome and has been shown to be the most sensitive method,” wrote Dan Li, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Santa Clara, and colleagues. The findings were published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The researchers studied 3,891 patients with newly diagnosed CRC who were screened for Lynch syndrome from 2011 to 2016. Data were collected from a population-based screening program at Kaiser Permanente Northern California.

“The system provides comprehensive medical care for more than 4 million members across 21 medical centers covering urban, suburban, and semirural areas,” Dr. Li and his colleagues wrote.

To compare universal and age-restricted screening, the team obtained surgical samples of all newly diagnosed CRC tumors and tested them for reflex mismatch repair protein expression using immunohistochemistry.

Subsequently, the age-restricted screening groups were divided into several age categories, ranging from age 50 to 85 years.

The diagnostic yield, defined as the “percentage of patients with pathogenic reflex mismatch repair gene variants among all patients with CRC screened with immunohistochemistry,” was measured and compared with the universal screening technique.

“We calculated the number of patients with CRC who needed to be screened in each age group to identify one case of Lynch syndrome by dividing the number of patients screened in each age group by the number of Lynch syndrome cases diagnosed in that group,” they explained.

After analysis, the researchers detected a total of 63 cases of Lynch syndrome (diagnostic yield, 1.62%) with universal screening, among which 5 (7.9%) were over age 70 years and 1 (1.6%) was over age 80 years.

When patients with CRC who were universally screened were used as the denominator, 58 cases (diagnostic yield, 1.49%) were detected in those with CRC diagnosed at or prior to age 70 years.

In addition, in patients diagnosed at or before age 75 and 80 years, 60 and 62 cases of Lynch syndrome (diagnostic yield, 1.54% and 1.59%) were detected, respectively.

“The incremental diagnostic yield decreased substantially after age 70 to 75 years,” they wrote.

With these findings, Dr. Li and his colleagues suggested that cessation of screening for Lynch syndrome post age 80 years may be acceptable, especially in resource-limited environments.

“Using age as the primary criterion is a simple method of selecting patients for Lynch syndrome screening in clinical practice,” they added.

In accordance with previous studies, a major reduction in Lynch syndrome incidence has been noted among elderly populations.

There remains a need for additional studies exploring the effects of diagnosing Lynch syndrome in elderly patients on family members.

The researchers acknowledged a key limitation of the study was that patients who did not finish germline analysis but were eligible for it were excluded from certain measurements. To reduce potential bias, the team conducted a sensitivity analysis, and the findings were negligible with respect to main results.

“Given the geographic variation in the reported prevalence of Lynch syndrome, the diagnostic efficiency of Lynch syndrome screening among elderly populations should be further investigated in other populations,” they concluded.

The study was funded by Kaiser Permanente Northern California. The authors reported financial affiliations with Bayer, Clinical Genomics, Covidien, Exact Sciences, Motus GI, Quorum, Universal DX, and the National Cancer Institute.

SOURCE: Li D et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jun 11. doi: 10.7326/M18-3316.

The need for universal screening for Lynch syndrome in elderly patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) has been questioned, according to results from a retrospective cohort study.

In addition, discontinuing reflex CRC screening for Lynch syndrome in patients over age 80 years could be feasible because of very low efficiency.

“The universal strategy advocates screening all patients with newly diagnosed CRC for Lynch syndrome and has been shown to be the most sensitive method,” wrote Dan Li, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Santa Clara, and colleagues. The findings were published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The researchers studied 3,891 patients with newly diagnosed CRC who were screened for Lynch syndrome from 2011 to 2016. Data were collected from a population-based screening program at Kaiser Permanente Northern California.

“The system provides comprehensive medical care for more than 4 million members across 21 medical centers covering urban, suburban, and semirural areas,” Dr. Li and his colleagues wrote.

To compare universal and age-restricted screening, the team obtained surgical samples of all newly diagnosed CRC tumors and tested them for reflex mismatch repair protein expression using immunohistochemistry.

Subsequently, the age-restricted screening groups were divided into several age categories, ranging from age 50 to 85 years.

The diagnostic yield, defined as the “percentage of patients with pathogenic reflex mismatch repair gene variants among all patients with CRC screened with immunohistochemistry,” was measured and compared with the universal screening technique.

“We calculated the number of patients with CRC who needed to be screened in each age group to identify one case of Lynch syndrome by dividing the number of patients screened in each age group by the number of Lynch syndrome cases diagnosed in that group,” they explained.

After analysis, the researchers detected a total of 63 cases of Lynch syndrome (diagnostic yield, 1.62%) with universal screening, among which 5 (7.9%) were over age 70 years and 1 (1.6%) was over age 80 years.

When patients with CRC who were universally screened were used as the denominator, 58 cases (diagnostic yield, 1.49%) were detected in those with CRC diagnosed at or prior to age 70 years.

In addition, in patients diagnosed at or before age 75 and 80 years, 60 and 62 cases of Lynch syndrome (diagnostic yield, 1.54% and 1.59%) were detected, respectively.

“The incremental diagnostic yield decreased substantially after age 70 to 75 years,” they wrote.

With these findings, Dr. Li and his colleagues suggested that cessation of screening for Lynch syndrome post age 80 years may be acceptable, especially in resource-limited environments.

“Using age as the primary criterion is a simple method of selecting patients for Lynch syndrome screening in clinical practice,” they added.

In accordance with previous studies, a major reduction in Lynch syndrome incidence has been noted among elderly populations.

There remains a need for additional studies exploring the effects of diagnosing Lynch syndrome in elderly patients on family members.

The researchers acknowledged a key limitation of the study was that patients who did not finish germline analysis but were eligible for it were excluded from certain measurements. To reduce potential bias, the team conducted a sensitivity analysis, and the findings were negligible with respect to main results.

“Given the geographic variation in the reported prevalence of Lynch syndrome, the diagnostic efficiency of Lynch syndrome screening among elderly populations should be further investigated in other populations,” they concluded.

The study was funded by Kaiser Permanente Northern California. The authors reported financial affiliations with Bayer, Clinical Genomics, Covidien, Exact Sciences, Motus GI, Quorum, Universal DX, and the National Cancer Institute.

SOURCE: Li D et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jun 11. doi: 10.7326/M18-3316.

Discontinuing statins was associated with an increased risk of hospital admission for a cardiovascular event, according to a study of elderly French patients with no history of heart disease.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

“The results of this study suggest potential cardiovascular risk reduction associated with continuing statin therapy after the age of 75 years in persons already taking these drugs for primary prevention,” wrote Philippe Giral, MD, of Hôpital La Pitié Salpêtrière (France) and coauthors. The study was published in the European Heart Journal.

To determine if statins are a cardiovascular benefit or detriment to older people, the researchers reviewed data from 120,173 patients in French health care databases who turned 75 during 2012-2014. Patients with a diagnosis of cardiovascular disease in the previous 2 years were excluded, and all eligible patients were required to have a statin medication possession ratio of at least 80% in each of the previous 2 years.

Over a follow-up period that averaged 2.4 years, 17,204 patients (14.3%) discontinued statins and 5,396 (4.5%) were admitted for a cardiovascular event. The adjusted hazard ratios for admissions after statin discontinuation were 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.50) for a cardiovascular event, 1.46 (95% CI, 1.21-1.75) for a coronary event, 1.26 (95% CI, 1.05-1.51) for a cerebrovascular event, and 1.02 (95% CI, 0.74-1.40) for other vascular events, respectively.

The coauthors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including being unable to account for certain cardiovascular risk factors such as baseline LDL cholesterol level, tobacco use, obesity, and frailty markers. In addition, no information was available as to why patients discontinued statins. However, the presence of other major cardiovascular risk factors was investigated and accounted for, as was discontinuation of other cardiovascular drug therapies.

The study was not funded, and the authors declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Giral P at al. Eur Heart J. 2019 July 31. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz458.

Discontinuing statins was associated with an increased risk of hospital admission for a cardiovascular event, according to a study of elderly French patients with no history of heart disease.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

“The results of this study suggest potential cardiovascular risk reduction associated with continuing statin therapy after the age of 75 years in persons already taking these drugs for primary prevention,” wrote Philippe Giral, MD, of Hôpital La Pitié Salpêtrière (France) and coauthors. The study was published in the European Heart Journal.

To determine if statins are a cardiovascular benefit or detriment to older people, the researchers reviewed data from 120,173 patients in French health care databases who turned 75 during 2012-2014. Patients with a diagnosis of cardiovascular disease in the previous 2 years were excluded, and all eligible patients were required to have a statin medication possession ratio of at least 80% in each of the previous 2 years.

Over a follow-up period that averaged 2.4 years, 17,204 patients (14.3%) discontinued statins and 5,396 (4.5%) were admitted for a cardiovascular event. The adjusted hazard ratios for admissions after statin discontinuation were 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.50) for a cardiovascular event, 1.46 (95% CI, 1.21-1.75) for a coronary event, 1.26 (95% CI, 1.05-1.51) for a cerebrovascular event, and 1.02 (95% CI, 0.74-1.40) for other vascular events, respectively.

The coauthors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including being unable to account for certain cardiovascular risk factors such as baseline LDL cholesterol level, tobacco use, obesity, and frailty markers. In addition, no information was available as to why patients discontinued statins. However, the presence of other major cardiovascular risk factors was investigated and accounted for, as was discontinuation of other cardiovascular drug therapies.

The study was not funded, and the authors declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Giral P at al. Eur Heart J. 2019 July 31. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz458.

Discontinuing statins was associated with an increased risk of hospital admission for a cardiovascular event, according to a study of elderly French patients with no history of heart disease.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

“The results of this study suggest potential cardiovascular risk reduction associated with continuing statin therapy after the age of 75 years in persons already taking these drugs for primary prevention,” wrote Philippe Giral, MD, of Hôpital La Pitié Salpêtrière (France) and coauthors. The study was published in the European Heart Journal.

To determine if statins are a cardiovascular benefit or detriment to older people, the researchers reviewed data from 120,173 patients in French health care databases who turned 75 during 2012-2014. Patients with a diagnosis of cardiovascular disease in the previous 2 years were excluded, and all eligible patients were required to have a statin medication possession ratio of at least 80% in each of the previous 2 years.

Over a follow-up period that averaged 2.4 years, 17,204 patients (14.3%) discontinued statins and 5,396 (4.5%) were admitted for a cardiovascular event. The adjusted hazard ratios for admissions after statin discontinuation were 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.50) for a cardiovascular event, 1.46 (95% CI, 1.21-1.75) for a coronary event, 1.26 (95% CI, 1.05-1.51) for a cerebrovascular event, and 1.02 (95% CI, 0.74-1.40) for other vascular events, respectively.

The coauthors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including being unable to account for certain cardiovascular risk factors such as baseline LDL cholesterol level, tobacco use, obesity, and frailty markers. In addition, no information was available as to why patients discontinued statins. However, the presence of other major cardiovascular risk factors was investigated and accounted for, as was discontinuation of other cardiovascular drug therapies.

The study was not funded, and the authors declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Giral P at al. Eur Heart J. 2019 July 31. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz458.

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the association between long-term exercise interventions (duration ≥ 1 year) and risks of falls, injurious falls, multiple falls, fractures, hospitalization, and mortality in older adults.

Design. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with preplanned meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the association between long-term exercise interventions and falls and fall-related adverse outcomes in adults older than 60 years. A literature search using electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SportDiscus, PsychInfo, and Ageline, was performed between February 20 and March 5, 2018. Studies selected were RCTs with exercise duration of 1 year or longer, where effects of exercise intervention were compared with a comparator group of participants aged 60 years or older. Articles were independently screened, abstracted, and assessed for risk of bias by 2 raters, who resolved divergences in data extraction and synthesis via in-person meetings.

Setting and participants. A total of 46 studies (22,709 participants; median of 203 participants per study) were included in the review and 40 studies (21,868 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. The participants’ mean age was 73.1 ± 7.1 years, and 66.3% (15,054 participants) were women. Studies were mostly conducted in Europe (n = 15), North America (n = 13), and Oceania (n = 10). Multicomponent training involving multiple exercises (eg, aerobic, strength and balance; 29 RCTs) was the most common intervention modality, followed by aerobic (8 RCTs) and strength (5 RCTs) training. Exercise interventions had a mean frequency of 3 times/week, with each session lasting approximately 50 minutes, and were administered at a moderate intensity. The average compliance rate with exercise training was 65%. Comparator groups were often active controls that ranged from attention controls to more intensive interventions.

Main outcome measures. The 6 binary outcomes investigated were fallers who fell at least once, multiple times, or at least twice; fractures; hospitalization; and mortality. Estimates of outcomes were combined using risk ratios (RRs) using DerSimonian and Laird’s random-effects model (Mantel-Haenszel method). Heterogeneity was evaluated using I² statistics, and trials with low rates of compliance (< 30%) with exercise intervention or high attrition (> 40%) were excluded in primary analyses.

Main results. Exercise training significantly reduced the risk of falls by 12% (n = 20 RCTs; 4420 participants; RR, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.98) and injurious falls by 26% (9 RCTs; 4481 participants; RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.88), and reduced the risk of fractures by 16% (19 RCTs; 8410 participants; RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-1.00; P = 0.05). Exercise training did not decrease the risk of multiple falls (13 RCTs; 3060 participants; RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.68-1.08), hospitalization (12 RCTs; 5639 participants; RR 0.94; 95% CI, 0.80-1.12), or mortality (29 RCTs; 11,441 participants; RR 0.96; 95% CI, 0.85-1.09). Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results, with the exception of the fixed-effect meta-analysis for the risk of fracture that showed a significant effect of long-term exercise training (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.00; P = 0.047). Meta-regression analysis on mortality and falls suggested that exercise frequency between 2 and 3 times per week was optimal and beneficial.

Conclusion. Long-term exercise training of 1 year or longer in duration is associated with a reduction in falls, injurious falls, and fractures in older adults. Moreover, moderate intensity, multicomponent exercise training performed 2 to 3 times weekly is likely safe and effective in this vulnerable population.

Commentary

Falls are exceedingly common (1 in 3 older Americans fall each year) and are the leading cause of fatal and nonfatal injuries in persons over the age of 65 years.^1,2 While fall prevention is a public health priority and a topic of interest in many research studies, there are important gaps in knowledge regarding optimal strategies to prevent falls and fall-related injuries in this high-risk population. The study reported by de Souto Barreto and colleagues provides new insights to address several of these gaps and may have a significant impact on the clinical practice of fall prevention in geriatric medicine.

Studies show that a single exercise intervention of short- to medium-term duration can prevent falls in community-dwelling older adults.³ However, the effects of long-term exercise training (ie, intervention lasting longer than a year) on fall prevention in this population is less well characterized. This study is the first meta-analysis that aimed to evaluate the potential beneficial impact of long-term exercise training on falls and adverse fall-related outcomes in adults ≥ 60 years of age who are prone to falls. The study’s findings indicate that long-term exercise training reduces the risk of falling by 12%, injurious falls by 26%, and factures by 16%. These results are important in that they add compelling evidence that exercise training of any duration can reduce falls and some fall-related adverse outcomes. Furthermore, the positive effects of long-term exercise training appear to mitigate some of the fatal and nonfatal injuries attributable to falls—the leading cause of such injuries in older adults.

The modality (type) and dose (frequency) of exercise training are important components of “exercise prescription” for older adults. However, there is a lack of research evidence to help clearly define these exercise parameters to better guide development of consensus exercise recommendations for older patients. This gap in knowledge limits the clinicians’ ability to recommend evidence-based treatment regimens to older adults who are at higher risk for falls. Moreover, although exercise programs are rarely associated with serious adverse events, recent findings from the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders (LIFE) study found a modest and nonstatistically significant association between long-term, moderate-intensity physical activity programs and an increase in hospitalizations and mortality in older adults.^4,5 Taken together, these gaps in knowledge highlight the urgent need to better understand the optimal methods for administering exercise programs in older adults as well as the need for critical appraisals of the benefits and harms associated with long-term exercise training in this vulnerable population.

The results reported by de Souto Barreto and colleagues helped to address these questions. In this study, the authors found that long-term multicomponent training, particularly moderate intensity with balance exercises performed 2 to 3 times a week, appears to be a safe and effective intervention for reducing falls and injurious falls in older adults. Importantly, this type of long-term exercise regimen does not increase hospitalization and mortality, and thus supports the notion that exercise therapy is safe in older adults. Therefore, information gained from this meta-analysis should help to guide clinicians to devise a patient-centered exercise prescription for fall prevention.

The current study was well designed and has a number of strengths. The design of the systematic review and meta-analysis allowed aggregation of data from multiple trials, resulting in a more robust point estimate to evaluate the effects of long-term exercise training on falls and fall-related outcomes that otherwise cannot be achieved with individual trials. In addition, the emphasis on long-term exercise training in older adults in the setting of falls and adverse fall-related outcomes addresses a key area of research that currently lacks a sufficient evidence base. There are also several limitations in this study, primarily due to the nature of its meta-analysis design. For instance, the study populations included in the analysis are highly heterogeneous and range from those with dementia to healthy participants. In addition, long-term exercise training, defined as a duration ≥ 1 year, was arbitrarily established as the minimum period of intervention. Thus, potential important studies that include interventions of significant duration, but less than 1 year, may not have been captured in this analysis.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Falls in older adults are common and may lead to devastating health consequences. The implementation of a long-term, multicomponent, moderate-intensity exercise regimen performed 2 to 3 times weekly can reduce falls and injurious falls in older adults.

—Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the association between long-term exercise interventions (duration ≥ 1 year) and risks of falls, injurious falls, multiple falls, fractures, hospitalization, and mortality in older adults.

Design. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with preplanned meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the association between long-term exercise interventions and falls and fall-related adverse outcomes in adults older than 60 years. A literature search using electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SportDiscus, PsychInfo, and Ageline, was performed between February 20 and March 5, 2018. Studies selected were RCTs with exercise duration of 1 year or longer, where effects of exercise intervention were compared with a comparator group of participants aged 60 years or older. Articles were independently screened, abstracted, and assessed for risk of bias by 2 raters, who resolved divergences in data extraction and synthesis via in-person meetings.

Setting and participants. A total of 46 studies (22,709 participants; median of 203 participants per study) were included in the review and 40 studies (21,868 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. The participants’ mean age was 73.1 ± 7.1 years, and 66.3% (15,054 participants) were women. Studies were mostly conducted in Europe (n = 15), North America (n = 13), and Oceania (n = 10). Multicomponent training involving multiple exercises (eg, aerobic, strength and balance; 29 RCTs) was the most common intervention modality, followed by aerobic (8 RCTs) and strength (5 RCTs) training. Exercise interventions had a mean frequency of 3 times/week, with each session lasting approximately 50 minutes, and were administered at a moderate intensity. The average compliance rate with exercise training was 65%. Comparator groups were often active controls that ranged from attention controls to more intensive interventions.

Main outcome measures. The 6 binary outcomes investigated were fallers who fell at least once, multiple times, or at least twice; fractures; hospitalization; and mortality. Estimates of outcomes were combined using risk ratios (RRs) using DerSimonian and Laird’s random-effects model (Mantel-Haenszel method). Heterogeneity was evaluated using I² statistics, and trials with low rates of compliance (< 30%) with exercise intervention or high attrition (> 40%) were excluded in primary analyses.

Main results. Exercise training significantly reduced the risk of falls by 12% (n = 20 RCTs; 4420 participants; RR, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.98) and injurious falls by 26% (9 RCTs; 4481 participants; RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.88), and reduced the risk of fractures by 16% (19 RCTs; 8410 participants; RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-1.00; P = 0.05). Exercise training did not decrease the risk of multiple falls (13 RCTs; 3060 participants; RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.68-1.08), hospitalization (12 RCTs; 5639 participants; RR 0.94; 95% CI, 0.80-1.12), or mortality (29 RCTs; 11,441 participants; RR 0.96; 95% CI, 0.85-1.09). Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results, with the exception of the fixed-effect meta-analysis for the risk of fracture that showed a significant effect of long-term exercise training (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.00; P = 0.047). Meta-regression analysis on mortality and falls suggested that exercise frequency between 2 and 3 times per week was optimal and beneficial.

Conclusion. Long-term exercise training of 1 year or longer in duration is associated with a reduction in falls, injurious falls, and fractures in older adults. Moreover, moderate intensity, multicomponent exercise training performed 2 to 3 times weekly is likely safe and effective in this vulnerable population.

Commentary

Falls are exceedingly common (1 in 3 older Americans fall each year) and are the leading cause of fatal and nonfatal injuries in persons over the age of 65 years.^1,2 While fall prevention is a public health priority and a topic of interest in many research studies, there are important gaps in knowledge regarding optimal strategies to prevent falls and fall-related injuries in this high-risk population. The study reported by de Souto Barreto and colleagues provides new insights to address several of these gaps and may have a significant impact on the clinical practice of fall prevention in geriatric medicine.

Studies show that a single exercise intervention of short- to medium-term duration can prevent falls in community-dwelling older adults.³ However, the effects of long-term exercise training (ie, intervention lasting longer than a year) on fall prevention in this population is less well characterized. This study is the first meta-analysis that aimed to evaluate the potential beneficial impact of long-term exercise training on falls and adverse fall-related outcomes in adults ≥ 60 years of age who are prone to falls. The study’s findings indicate that long-term exercise training reduces the risk of falling by 12%, injurious falls by 26%, and factures by 16%. These results are important in that they add compelling evidence that exercise training of any duration can reduce falls and some fall-related adverse outcomes. Furthermore, the positive effects of long-term exercise training appear to mitigate some of the fatal and nonfatal injuries attributable to falls—the leading cause of such injuries in older adults.

The modality (type) and dose (frequency) of exercise training are important components of “exercise prescription” for older adults. However, there is a lack of research evidence to help clearly define these exercise parameters to better guide development of consensus exercise recommendations for older patients. This gap in knowledge limits the clinicians’ ability to recommend evidence-based treatment regimens to older adults who are at higher risk for falls. Moreover, although exercise programs are rarely associated with serious adverse events, recent findings from the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders (LIFE) study found a modest and nonstatistically significant association between long-term, moderate-intensity physical activity programs and an increase in hospitalizations and mortality in older adults.^4,5 Taken together, these gaps in knowledge highlight the urgent need to better understand the optimal methods for administering exercise programs in older adults as well as the need for critical appraisals of the benefits and harms associated with long-term exercise training in this vulnerable population.

The results reported by de Souto Barreto and colleagues helped to address these questions. In this study, the authors found that long-term multicomponent training, particularly moderate intensity with balance exercises performed 2 to 3 times a week, appears to be a safe and effective intervention for reducing falls and injurious falls in older adults. Importantly, this type of long-term exercise regimen does not increase hospitalization and mortality, and thus supports the notion that exercise therapy is safe in older adults. Therefore, information gained from this meta-analysis should help to guide clinicians to devise a patient-centered exercise prescription for fall prevention.

The current study was well designed and has a number of strengths. The design of the systematic review and meta-analysis allowed aggregation of data from multiple trials, resulting in a more robust point estimate to evaluate the effects of long-term exercise training on falls and fall-related outcomes that otherwise cannot be achieved with individual trials. In addition, the emphasis on long-term exercise training in older adults in the setting of falls and adverse fall-related outcomes addresses a key area of research that currently lacks a sufficient evidence base. There are also several limitations in this study, primarily due to the nature of its meta-analysis design. For instance, the study populations included in the analysis are highly heterogeneous and range from those with dementia to healthy participants. In addition, long-term exercise training, defined as a duration ≥ 1 year, was arbitrarily established as the minimum period of intervention. Thus, potential important studies that include interventions of significant duration, but less than 1 year, may not have been captured in this analysis.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Falls in older adults are common and may lead to devastating health consequences. The implementation of a long-term, multicomponent, moderate-intensity exercise regimen performed 2 to 3 times weekly can reduce falls and injurious falls in older adults.

—Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the association between long-term exercise interventions (duration ≥ 1 year) and risks of falls, injurious falls, multiple falls, fractures, hospitalization, and mortality in older adults.

Design. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with preplanned meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the association between long-term exercise interventions and falls and fall-related adverse outcomes in adults older than 60 years. A literature search using electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SportDiscus, PsychInfo, and Ageline, was performed between February 20 and March 5, 2018. Studies selected were RCTs with exercise duration of 1 year or longer, where effects of exercise intervention were compared with a comparator group of participants aged 60 years or older. Articles were independently screened, abstracted, and assessed for risk of bias by 2 raters, who resolved divergences in data extraction and synthesis via in-person meetings.

Setting and participants. A total of 46 studies (22,709 participants; median of 203 participants per study) were included in the review and 40 studies (21,868 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. The participants’ mean age was 73.1 ± 7.1 years, and 66.3% (15,054 participants) were women. Studies were mostly conducted in Europe (n = 15), North America (n = 13), and Oceania (n = 10). Multicomponent training involving multiple exercises (eg, aerobic, strength and balance; 29 RCTs) was the most common intervention modality, followed by aerobic (8 RCTs) and strength (5 RCTs) training. Exercise interventions had a mean frequency of 3 times/week, with each session lasting approximately 50 minutes, and were administered at a moderate intensity. The average compliance rate with exercise training was 65%. Comparator groups were often active controls that ranged from attention controls to more intensive interventions.

Main outcome measures. The 6 binary outcomes investigated were fallers who fell at least once, multiple times, or at least twice; fractures; hospitalization; and mortality. Estimates of outcomes were combined using risk ratios (RRs) using DerSimonian and Laird’s random-effects model (Mantel-Haenszel method). Heterogeneity was evaluated using I² statistics, and trials with low rates of compliance (< 30%) with exercise intervention or high attrition (> 40%) were excluded in primary analyses.

Main results. Exercise training significantly reduced the risk of falls by 12% (n = 20 RCTs; 4420 participants; RR, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.98) and injurious falls by 26% (9 RCTs; 4481 participants; RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.88), and reduced the risk of fractures by 16% (19 RCTs; 8410 participants; RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-1.00; P = 0.05). Exercise training did not decrease the risk of multiple falls (13 RCTs; 3060 participants; RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.68-1.08), hospitalization (12 RCTs; 5639 participants; RR 0.94; 95% CI, 0.80-1.12), or mortality (29 RCTs; 11,441 participants; RR 0.96; 95% CI, 0.85-1.09). Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results, with the exception of the fixed-effect meta-analysis for the risk of fracture that showed a significant effect of long-term exercise training (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.00; P = 0.047). Meta-regression analysis on mortality and falls suggested that exercise frequency between 2 and 3 times per week was optimal and beneficial.

Conclusion. Long-term exercise training of 1 year or longer in duration is associated with a reduction in falls, injurious falls, and fractures in older adults. Moreover, moderate intensity, multicomponent exercise training performed 2 to 3 times weekly is likely safe and effective in this vulnerable population.

Commentary

Falls are exceedingly common (1 in 3 older Americans fall each year) and are the leading cause of fatal and nonfatal injuries in persons over the age of 65 years.^1,2 While fall prevention is a public health priority and a topic of interest in many research studies, there are important gaps in knowledge regarding optimal strategies to prevent falls and fall-related injuries in this high-risk population. The study reported by de Souto Barreto and colleagues provides new insights to address several of these gaps and may have a significant impact on the clinical practice of fall prevention in geriatric medicine.

Studies show that a single exercise intervention of short- to medium-term duration can prevent falls in community-dwelling older adults.³ However, the effects of long-term exercise training (ie, intervention lasting longer than a year) on fall prevention in this population is less well characterized. This study is the first meta-analysis that aimed to evaluate the potential beneficial impact of long-term exercise training on falls and adverse fall-related outcomes in adults ≥ 60 years of age who are prone to falls. The study’s findings indicate that long-term exercise training reduces the risk of falling by 12%, injurious falls by 26%, and factures by 16%. These results are important in that they add compelling evidence that exercise training of any duration can reduce falls and some fall-related adverse outcomes. Furthermore, the positive effects of long-term exercise training appear to mitigate some of the fatal and nonfatal injuries attributable to falls—the leading cause of such injuries in older adults.

The modality (type) and dose (frequency) of exercise training are important components of “exercise prescription” for older adults. However, there is a lack of research evidence to help clearly define these exercise parameters to better guide development of consensus exercise recommendations for older patients. This gap in knowledge limits the clinicians’ ability to recommend evidence-based treatment regimens to older adults who are at higher risk for falls. Moreover, although exercise programs are rarely associated with serious adverse events, recent findings from the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders (LIFE) study found a modest and nonstatistically significant association between long-term, moderate-intensity physical activity programs and an increase in hospitalizations and mortality in older adults.^4,5 Taken together, these gaps in knowledge highlight the urgent need to better understand the optimal methods for administering exercise programs in older adults as well as the need for critical appraisals of the benefits and harms associated with long-term exercise training in this vulnerable population.

The results reported by de Souto Barreto and colleagues helped to address these questions. In this study, the authors found that long-term multicomponent training, particularly moderate intensity with balance exercises performed 2 to 3 times a week, appears to be a safe and effective intervention for reducing falls and injurious falls in older adults. Importantly, this type of long-term exercise regimen does not increase hospitalization and mortality, and thus supports the notion that exercise therapy is safe in older adults. Therefore, information gained from this meta-analysis should help to guide clinicians to devise a patient-centered exercise prescription for fall prevention.

The current study was well designed and has a number of strengths. The design of the systematic review and meta-analysis allowed aggregation of data from multiple trials, resulting in a more robust point estimate to evaluate the effects of long-term exercise training on falls and fall-related outcomes that otherwise cannot be achieved with individual trials. In addition, the emphasis on long-term exercise training in older adults in the setting of falls and adverse fall-related outcomes addresses a key area of research that currently lacks a sufficient evidence base. There are also several limitations in this study, primarily due to the nature of its meta-analysis design. For instance, the study populations included in the analysis are highly heterogeneous and range from those with dementia to healthy participants. In addition, long-term exercise training, defined as a duration ≥ 1 year, was arbitrarily established as the minimum period of intervention. Thus, potential important studies that include interventions of significant duration, but less than 1 year, may not have been captured in this analysis.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Falls in older adults are common and may lead to devastating health consequences. The implementation of a long-term, multicomponent, moderate-intensity exercise regimen performed 2 to 3 times weekly can reduce falls and injurious falls in older adults.

—Fred Ko, MD, MS

Diabetes management in adults aged 65 years and older involves special considerations, because the effects of aging on metabolic regulation can exacerbate the disease and accelerate the development of common complications, according to a new guideline on diabetes care for older adults issued by the Endocrine Society.

“The prevalence of diabetes in the United States is projected to increase dramatically during the next 3 decades as the population ages, the numbers of higher-risk minority groups increase, and people with diabetes live longer because of decreasing rates of cardiovascular deaths,” wrote Derek LeRoith, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and his writing committee colleagues. They said their goal was to provide health care providers with guidance for the management of type 1 or type 2 diabetes in older patients, with a focus on simplifying medication regimens and management strategies to avoid “unnecessary and/or harmful adverse effects.”

The guideline, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, is based mainly on evidence from controlled trials in two systematic reviews that specifically focused on adults aged 65 years and older. The guideline addresses six areas of consideration for this patient population:

• Role of the endocrinologist and diabetes care specialist.
• Screening for diabetes and prediabetes, and diabetes prevention.
• Assessment of older patients with diabetes.
• Treatment of hyperglycemia.
• Treating complications of diabetes.
• Special settings and populations.

Partnerships and screening

The guideline recommends that primary care providers partner with an endocrinologist or diabetes specialist in the care of patients aged 65 and older with newly diagnosed diabetes, and that the specialist take primary responsibility for diabetes care of patients with type 1 diabetes or those who need more complex intervention to achieve treatment goals.

Screening for diabetes in adults aged 65 years and older using fasting plasma glucose and/or hemoglobin A_1c should occur every 2 years, but that schedule should be adjusted based on shared decision making with the patient, the committee said. Providers are advised to assess the patient’s overall health and personal values before settling on treatment goals and strategies. The writing group also recommends periodic cognitive screening and that medication regimens be simplified as much as possible.
 

Tackling hyperglycemia

For treatment of hyperglycemia, the guideline recommends outpatient strategies to minimize hypoglycemia and periodic or continuous glucose monitoring. The strategies include lifestyle modifications as a first-line intervention for ambulatory patients, as well as nutritional assessment. A high-protein diet is recommended for older patients with frailty, but no restrictions on diet are advised for patients who cannot meet glycemic targets with lifestyle modification and who are at risk for malnutrition.

Metformin is the first-choice recommendation for patients with diabetes aged 65 and older who need medical management in addition to lifestyle modification, but it is not recommended for individuals with impaired kidney function or gastrointestinal intolerance, according to the guideline. Oral and injectable drugs and/or insulin are recommended if metformin and lifestyle changes are insufficient to meet glycemic targets, the writers noted.
 

Managing complications

Hypertension is among the diabetes-related complications that need to be managed in older adults, and the guideline recommends a target blood pressure of 140/90 mm Hg, but other targets – based on patient-provider shared decision making – may be considered for patients in high-risk groups.

The guideline calls for management of hyperlipidemia with statin therapy and “use of an annual lipid profile to achieve the recommended levels for reducing absolute cardiovascular disease events and all-cause mortality.” The committee does not specify low-density lipoprotein cholesterol targets because of insufficient evidence, but recommends alternative treatments, including ezetimibe or proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, if statin therapy is not enough to help the patients meet goals. The writers also advocate fish oil and/or fenofibrate for patients with fasting triglycerides of more than 500 mg/dL.

To manage congestive heart failure in older patients with diabetes, the guideline recommends following standard clinical practice guidelines for the condition, and cautious use of oral hypoglycemic agents, including glinides, rosiglitazone, pioglitazone, and dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors. The writers noted that low-dose aspirin is recommended for patients with diabetes with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

The committee also recommends an annual comprehensive eye exam for patients with diabetes aged 65 years and older to identify retinal disease and suggests that actions, such as physical therapy and reduced use of sedatives, be taken to minimize the risk of falls in patients with neuropathy or problems with balance and gait.

Older patients with diabetes also should be screened annually for chronic kidney disease, and the dosage of diabetes medications should be adjusted to minimize side effects in patients with kidney problems.
 

Tailoring care to setting

Finally, the guideline addresses special settings and populations, including managing diabetes in hospitals or nursing homes, or in patients who are transitioning to homes or long-term care facilities. Recommendations in this category include simplifying medications for older adults with terminal illness or severe comorbidities, as well as setting glycemic targets as part of a hospital discharge plan.

“The most important aspect of successful transition is effective, detailed, and thorough bidirectional communication between the discharging and receiving teams of health care providers,” the writers emphasized.

The guideline is cosponsored by the European Society of Endocrinology, the Gerontological Society of America, and the Obesity Society. The chair of the committee had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose, and at least 50% of the committee members were free of relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: LeRoith D et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104:1520-74.

Diabetes management in adults aged 65 years and older involves special considerations, because the effects of aging on metabolic regulation can exacerbate the disease and accelerate the development of common complications, according to a new guideline on diabetes care for older adults issued by the Endocrine Society.

“The prevalence of diabetes in the United States is projected to increase dramatically during the next 3 decades as the population ages, the numbers of higher-risk minority groups increase, and people with diabetes live longer because of decreasing rates of cardiovascular deaths,” wrote Derek LeRoith, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and his writing committee colleagues. They said their goal was to provide health care providers with guidance for the management of type 1 or type 2 diabetes in older patients, with a focus on simplifying medication regimens and management strategies to avoid “unnecessary and/or harmful adverse effects.”

The guideline, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, is based mainly on evidence from controlled trials in two systematic reviews that specifically focused on adults aged 65 years and older. The guideline addresses six areas of consideration for this patient population:

• Role of the endocrinologist and diabetes care specialist.
• Screening for diabetes and prediabetes, and diabetes prevention.
• Assessment of older patients with diabetes.
• Treatment of hyperglycemia.
• Treating complications of diabetes.
• Special settings and populations.

Partnerships and screening

The guideline recommends that primary care providers partner with an endocrinologist or diabetes specialist in the care of patients aged 65 and older with newly diagnosed diabetes, and that the specialist take primary responsibility for diabetes care of patients with type 1 diabetes or those who need more complex intervention to achieve treatment goals.

Screening for diabetes in adults aged 65 years and older using fasting plasma glucose and/or hemoglobin A_1c should occur every 2 years, but that schedule should be adjusted based on shared decision making with the patient, the committee said. Providers are advised to assess the patient’s overall health and personal values before settling on treatment goals and strategies. The writing group also recommends periodic cognitive screening and that medication regimens be simplified as much as possible.
 

Tackling hyperglycemia

For treatment of hyperglycemia, the guideline recommends outpatient strategies to minimize hypoglycemia and periodic or continuous glucose monitoring. The strategies include lifestyle modifications as a first-line intervention for ambulatory patients, as well as nutritional assessment. A high-protein diet is recommended for older patients with frailty, but no restrictions on diet are advised for patients who cannot meet glycemic targets with lifestyle modification and who are at risk for malnutrition.

Metformin is the first-choice recommendation for patients with diabetes aged 65 and older who need medical management in addition to lifestyle modification, but it is not recommended for individuals with impaired kidney function or gastrointestinal intolerance, according to the guideline. Oral and injectable drugs and/or insulin are recommended if metformin and lifestyle changes are insufficient to meet glycemic targets, the writers noted.
 

Managing complications

Hypertension is among the diabetes-related complications that need to be managed in older adults, and the guideline recommends a target blood pressure of 140/90 mm Hg, but other targets – based on patient-provider shared decision making – may be considered for patients in high-risk groups.

The guideline calls for management of hyperlipidemia with statin therapy and “use of an annual lipid profile to achieve the recommended levels for reducing absolute cardiovascular disease events and all-cause mortality.” The committee does not specify low-density lipoprotein cholesterol targets because of insufficient evidence, but recommends alternative treatments, including ezetimibe or proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, if statin therapy is not enough to help the patients meet goals. The writers also advocate fish oil and/or fenofibrate for patients with fasting triglycerides of more than 500 mg/dL.

To manage congestive heart failure in older patients with diabetes, the guideline recommends following standard clinical practice guidelines for the condition, and cautious use of oral hypoglycemic agents, including glinides, rosiglitazone, pioglitazone, and dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors. The writers noted that low-dose aspirin is recommended for patients with diabetes with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

The committee also recommends an annual comprehensive eye exam for patients with diabetes aged 65 years and older to identify retinal disease and suggests that actions, such as physical therapy and reduced use of sedatives, be taken to minimize the risk of falls in patients with neuropathy or problems with balance and gait.

Older patients with diabetes also should be screened annually for chronic kidney disease, and the dosage of diabetes medications should be adjusted to minimize side effects in patients with kidney problems.
 

Tailoring care to setting

Finally, the guideline addresses special settings and populations, including managing diabetes in hospitals or nursing homes, or in patients who are transitioning to homes or long-term care facilities. Recommendations in this category include simplifying medications for older adults with terminal illness or severe comorbidities, as well as setting glycemic targets as part of a hospital discharge plan.

“The most important aspect of successful transition is effective, detailed, and thorough bidirectional communication between the discharging and receiving teams of health care providers,” the writers emphasized.

The guideline is cosponsored by the European Society of Endocrinology, the Gerontological Society of America, and the Obesity Society. The chair of the committee had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose, and at least 50% of the committee members were free of relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: LeRoith D et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104:1520-74.

Diabetes management in adults aged 65 years and older involves special considerations, because the effects of aging on metabolic regulation can exacerbate the disease and accelerate the development of common complications, according to a new guideline on diabetes care for older adults issued by the Endocrine Society.

“The prevalence of diabetes in the United States is projected to increase dramatically during the next 3 decades as the population ages, the numbers of higher-risk minority groups increase, and people with diabetes live longer because of decreasing rates of cardiovascular deaths,” wrote Derek LeRoith, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and his writing committee colleagues. They said their goal was to provide health care providers with guidance for the management of type 1 or type 2 diabetes in older patients, with a focus on simplifying medication regimens and management strategies to avoid “unnecessary and/or harmful adverse effects.”

The guideline, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, is based mainly on evidence from controlled trials in two systematic reviews that specifically focused on adults aged 65 years and older. The guideline addresses six areas of consideration for this patient population:

• Role of the endocrinologist and diabetes care specialist.
• Screening for diabetes and prediabetes, and diabetes prevention.
• Assessment of older patients with diabetes.
• Treatment of hyperglycemia.
• Treating complications of diabetes.
• Special settings and populations.

Partnerships and screening

The guideline recommends that primary care providers partner with an endocrinologist or diabetes specialist in the care of patients aged 65 and older with newly diagnosed diabetes, and that the specialist take primary responsibility for diabetes care of patients with type 1 diabetes or those who need more complex intervention to achieve treatment goals.

Screening for diabetes in adults aged 65 years and older using fasting plasma glucose and/or hemoglobin A_1c should occur every 2 years, but that schedule should be adjusted based on shared decision making with the patient, the committee said. Providers are advised to assess the patient’s overall health and personal values before settling on treatment goals and strategies. The writing group also recommends periodic cognitive screening and that medication regimens be simplified as much as possible.
 

Tackling hyperglycemia

For treatment of hyperglycemia, the guideline recommends outpatient strategies to minimize hypoglycemia and periodic or continuous glucose monitoring. The strategies include lifestyle modifications as a first-line intervention for ambulatory patients, as well as nutritional assessment. A high-protein diet is recommended for older patients with frailty, but no restrictions on diet are advised for patients who cannot meet glycemic targets with lifestyle modification and who are at risk for malnutrition.

Metformin is the first-choice recommendation for patients with diabetes aged 65 and older who need medical management in addition to lifestyle modification, but it is not recommended for individuals with impaired kidney function or gastrointestinal intolerance, according to the guideline. Oral and injectable drugs and/or insulin are recommended if metformin and lifestyle changes are insufficient to meet glycemic targets, the writers noted.
 

Managing complications

Hypertension is among the diabetes-related complications that need to be managed in older adults, and the guideline recommends a target blood pressure of 140/90 mm Hg, but other targets – based on patient-provider shared decision making – may be considered for patients in high-risk groups.

The guideline calls for management of hyperlipidemia with statin therapy and “use of an annual lipid profile to achieve the recommended levels for reducing absolute cardiovascular disease events and all-cause mortality.” The committee does not specify low-density lipoprotein cholesterol targets because of insufficient evidence, but recommends alternative treatments, including ezetimibe or proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, if statin therapy is not enough to help the patients meet goals. The writers also advocate fish oil and/or fenofibrate for patients with fasting triglycerides of more than 500 mg/dL.

To manage congestive heart failure in older patients with diabetes, the guideline recommends following standard clinical practice guidelines for the condition, and cautious use of oral hypoglycemic agents, including glinides, rosiglitazone, pioglitazone, and dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors. The writers noted that low-dose aspirin is recommended for patients with diabetes with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

The committee also recommends an annual comprehensive eye exam for patients with diabetes aged 65 years and older to identify retinal disease and suggests that actions, such as physical therapy and reduced use of sedatives, be taken to minimize the risk of falls in patients with neuropathy or problems with balance and gait.

Older patients with diabetes also should be screened annually for chronic kidney disease, and the dosage of diabetes medications should be adjusted to minimize side effects in patients with kidney problems.
 

Tailoring care to setting

Finally, the guideline addresses special settings and populations, including managing diabetes in hospitals or nursing homes, or in patients who are transitioning to homes or long-term care facilities. Recommendations in this category include simplifying medications for older adults with terminal illness or severe comorbidities, as well as setting glycemic targets as part of a hospital discharge plan.

“The most important aspect of successful transition is effective, detailed, and thorough bidirectional communication between the discharging and receiving teams of health care providers,” the writers emphasized.

The guideline is cosponsored by the European Society of Endocrinology, the Gerontological Society of America, and the Obesity Society. The chair of the committee had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose, and at least 50% of the committee members were free of relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: LeRoith D et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104:1520-74.