Federal Practitioner

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today’s topic is the new osteoporosis treatment guidelines issued by the American College of Physicians (ACP). The focus of the guidelines is treatment of osteoporosis. But first, I want to discuss screening.

In its 2018 statement, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) says that osteoporosis should be screened for in women older than 65 years of age, and those who are younger who are at increased risk based on a risk assessment tool (usually the FRAX tool). There is not enough evidence to weigh in for or against screening men. The other large organization that weighs in on screening is the Bone Health & Osteoporosis Foundation, which agrees with the USPSTF, but in addition says that we should be screening men over age 70 and men who are younger (age 50 to 69) who have risk factors. We should also screen anyone who has a fracture after low impact or no trauma.

Let’s now go on to the ACP treatment guidelines. Osteoporosis is defined as bone mineral density at the femoral neck or the lumbar spine, or both, with a T score less than -2.5.

For postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, you should use a bisphosphonate as first-line treatment to reduce the risk for future fractures. This is given a strong recommendation based on a high certainty of evidence. Bisphosphonates vs. placebo over 3 years leads to one fewer hip fracture per 150 patients treated and one fewer vertebral fracture per 50 people treated.

All the other recommendations in the guidelines are considered “conditional recommendations” that are correct for most people. But whether they make sense for an individual patient depends upon other details, as well as their values and preferences. For instance, treatment of osteoporosis in men is given a conditional recommendation, not because the evidence suggests that it’s not as effective, but because there is not as much evidence. Initial treatment for a man with osteoporosis is with bisphosphonates. Men do get osteoporosis and account for about 30% of hip fractures. This is not a surprise to anyone who takes care of older adults.

For postmenopausal women or men who you would want to treat but who can’t tolerate a bisphosphonate, then the recommendation is to use a RANK ligand inhibitor. Denosumab can be used as second-line treatment to reduce the risk for fractures. Remember, bisphosphonates and denosumab are antiresorptive drugs, meaning they slow the progression of osteoporosis. The anabolic drugs, on the other hand, such as the sclerostin inhibitor romosozumab and recombinant human parathyroid hormone (PTH) teriparatide, increase bone density. The anabolic agents should be used only in women with primary osteoporosis who are at very high risk for fractures, and use of these agents always needs to be followed by an antiresorptive agent, because otherwise there’s a risk for rebound osteoporosis and an increased risk for vertebral fractures.

Now, how about osteopenia? The guidelines recommend that for women over 65 with osteopenia, use an individualized approach influenced by the level of risk for fracture, including increased age, low body weight, current smoking, hip fracture in a parent, fall risk, and a personal history of fracture. The guidelines note that increasing the duration of bisphosphonate therapy beyond 3-5 years does reduce the risk for new vertebral fractures, but it doesn’t reduce the risk for other fractures and it increases the risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical hip fractures. Therefore, the guidelines say that we should use bisphosphonates only for 3-5 years unless someone is at extremely high risk. It’s also important to note that there’s a fivefold higher risk for atypical femoral fractures among Asian women.

Don’t forget about adequate vitamin D and calcium. And most importantly, don’t forget about exercise, particularly exercise aimed at improving balance and quadriceps strength, which helps prevent falls.
 

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, and Teva.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today’s topic is the new osteoporosis treatment guidelines issued by the American College of Physicians (ACP). The focus of the guidelines is treatment of osteoporosis. But first, I want to discuss screening.

In its 2018 statement, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) says that osteoporosis should be screened for in women older than 65 years of age, and those who are younger who are at increased risk based on a risk assessment tool (usually the FRAX tool). There is not enough evidence to weigh in for or against screening men. The other large organization that weighs in on screening is the Bone Health & Osteoporosis Foundation, which agrees with the USPSTF, but in addition says that we should be screening men over age 70 and men who are younger (age 50 to 69) who have risk factors. We should also screen anyone who has a fracture after low impact or no trauma.

Let’s now go on to the ACP treatment guidelines. Osteoporosis is defined as bone mineral density at the femoral neck or the lumbar spine, or both, with a T score less than -2.5.

For postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, you should use a bisphosphonate as first-line treatment to reduce the risk for future fractures. This is given a strong recommendation based on a high certainty of evidence. Bisphosphonates vs. placebo over 3 years leads to one fewer hip fracture per 150 patients treated and one fewer vertebral fracture per 50 people treated.

All the other recommendations in the guidelines are considered “conditional recommendations” that are correct for most people. But whether they make sense for an individual patient depends upon other details, as well as their values and preferences. For instance, treatment of osteoporosis in men is given a conditional recommendation, not because the evidence suggests that it’s not as effective, but because there is not as much evidence. Initial treatment for a man with osteoporosis is with bisphosphonates. Men do get osteoporosis and account for about 30% of hip fractures. This is not a surprise to anyone who takes care of older adults.

For postmenopausal women or men who you would want to treat but who can’t tolerate a bisphosphonate, then the recommendation is to use a RANK ligand inhibitor. Denosumab can be used as second-line treatment to reduce the risk for fractures. Remember, bisphosphonates and denosumab are antiresorptive drugs, meaning they slow the progression of osteoporosis. The anabolic drugs, on the other hand, such as the sclerostin inhibitor romosozumab and recombinant human parathyroid hormone (PTH) teriparatide, increase bone density. The anabolic agents should be used only in women with primary osteoporosis who are at very high risk for fractures, and use of these agents always needs to be followed by an antiresorptive agent, because otherwise there’s a risk for rebound osteoporosis and an increased risk for vertebral fractures.

Now, how about osteopenia? The guidelines recommend that for women over 65 with osteopenia, use an individualized approach influenced by the level of risk for fracture, including increased age, low body weight, current smoking, hip fracture in a parent, fall risk, and a personal history of fracture. The guidelines note that increasing the duration of bisphosphonate therapy beyond 3-5 years does reduce the risk for new vertebral fractures, but it doesn’t reduce the risk for other fractures and it increases the risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical hip fractures. Therefore, the guidelines say that we should use bisphosphonates only for 3-5 years unless someone is at extremely high risk. It’s also important to note that there’s a fivefold higher risk for atypical femoral fractures among Asian women.

Don’t forget about adequate vitamin D and calcium. And most importantly, don’t forget about exercise, particularly exercise aimed at improving balance and quadriceps strength, which helps prevent falls.
 

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, and Teva.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today’s topic is the new osteoporosis treatment guidelines issued by the American College of Physicians (ACP). The focus of the guidelines is treatment of osteoporosis. But first, I want to discuss screening.

In its 2018 statement, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) says that osteoporosis should be screened for in women older than 65 years of age, and those who are younger who are at increased risk based on a risk assessment tool (usually the FRAX tool). There is not enough evidence to weigh in for or against screening men. The other large organization that weighs in on screening is the Bone Health & Osteoporosis Foundation, which agrees with the USPSTF, but in addition says that we should be screening men over age 70 and men who are younger (age 50 to 69) who have risk factors. We should also screen anyone who has a fracture after low impact or no trauma.

Let’s now go on to the ACP treatment guidelines. Osteoporosis is defined as bone mineral density at the femoral neck or the lumbar spine, or both, with a T score less than -2.5.

For postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, you should use a bisphosphonate as first-line treatment to reduce the risk for future fractures. This is given a strong recommendation based on a high certainty of evidence. Bisphosphonates vs. placebo over 3 years leads to one fewer hip fracture per 150 patients treated and one fewer vertebral fracture per 50 people treated.

All the other recommendations in the guidelines are considered “conditional recommendations” that are correct for most people. But whether they make sense for an individual patient depends upon other details, as well as their values and preferences. For instance, treatment of osteoporosis in men is given a conditional recommendation, not because the evidence suggests that it’s not as effective, but because there is not as much evidence. Initial treatment for a man with osteoporosis is with bisphosphonates. Men do get osteoporosis and account for about 30% of hip fractures. This is not a surprise to anyone who takes care of older adults.

For postmenopausal women or men who you would want to treat but who can’t tolerate a bisphosphonate, then the recommendation is to use a RANK ligand inhibitor. Denosumab can be used as second-line treatment to reduce the risk for fractures. Remember, bisphosphonates and denosumab are antiresorptive drugs, meaning they slow the progression of osteoporosis. The anabolic drugs, on the other hand, such as the sclerostin inhibitor romosozumab and recombinant human parathyroid hormone (PTH) teriparatide, increase bone density. The anabolic agents should be used only in women with primary osteoporosis who are at very high risk for fractures, and use of these agents always needs to be followed by an antiresorptive agent, because otherwise there’s a risk for rebound osteoporosis and an increased risk for vertebral fractures.

Now, how about osteopenia? The guidelines recommend that for women over 65 with osteopenia, use an individualized approach influenced by the level of risk for fracture, including increased age, low body weight, current smoking, hip fracture in a parent, fall risk, and a personal history of fracture. The guidelines note that increasing the duration of bisphosphonate therapy beyond 3-5 years does reduce the risk for new vertebral fractures, but it doesn’t reduce the risk for other fractures and it increases the risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical hip fractures. Therefore, the guidelines say that we should use bisphosphonates only for 3-5 years unless someone is at extremely high risk. It’s also important to note that there’s a fivefold higher risk for atypical femoral fractures among Asian women.

Don’t forget about adequate vitamin D and calcium. And most importantly, don’t forget about exercise, particularly exercise aimed at improving balance and quadriceps strength, which helps prevent falls.
 

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, and Teva.

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

The lowest available national prices of drugs to treat obesity are up to 20 times higher than the estimated cost of profitable generic versions of the same agents, according to a new analysis.
 

The findings by Jacob Levi, MBBS, and colleagues were published in Obesity.

“Our study highlights the inequality in pricing that exists for effective antiobesity medications, which are largely unaffordable in most countries,” Dr. Levi, from Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust, London, said in a press release.

“We show that these drugs can actually be produced and sold profitably for low prices,” he summarized. “A public health approach that prioritizes improving access to medications should be adopted, instead of allowing companies to maximize profits,” Dr. Levi urged.

Dr. Levi and colleagues studied the oral agents orlistat, naltrexone/bupropion, topiramate/phentermine, and semaglutide, and subcutaneous liraglutide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide (all approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat obesity, except for oral semaglutide and subcutaneous tirzepatide, which are not yet approved to treat obesity in the absence of type 2 diabetes).

“Worldwide, more people are dying from diabetes and clinical obesity than HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria combined now,” senior author Andrew Hill, MD, department of pharmacology and therapeutics, University of Liverpool, England, pointed out.
 

We need to repeat the low-cost success story with obesity drugs

“Millions of lives have been saved by treating infectious diseases at low cost in poor countries,” Dr. Hill continued. “Now we need to repeat this medical success story, with mass treatment of diabetes and clinical obesity at low prices.”

However, in an accompanying editorial, Eric A. Finkelstein, MD, and Junxing Chay, PhD, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, maintain that “It would be great if everyone had affordable access to all medicines that might improve their health. Yet that is simply not possible, nor will it ever be.”

“What is truly needed is a better way to ration the health care dollars currently available in efforts to maximize population health. That is the challenge ahead not just for [antiobesity medications] but for all treatments,” they say.

“Greater use of cost-effectiveness analysis and direct negotiations, while maintaining the patent system, represents an appropriate approach for allocating scarce health care resources in the United States and beyond,” they continue.
 

Lowest current patented drug prices vs. estimated generic drug prices

New medications for obesity were highly effective in recent clinical trials, but high prices limit the ability of patients to get these medications, Dr. Levi and colleagues write.

They analyzed prices for obesity drugs in 16 low-, middle-, and high-income countries: Australia, Bangladesh, China, France, Germany, India, Kenya, Morocco, Norway, Peru, Pakistan, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Vietnam.

The researchers assessed the price of a 30-day supply of each of the studied branded drugs based on the lowest available price (in 2021 U.S. dollars) from multiple online national price databases.

Then they calculated the estimated minimum price of a 30-day supply of a potential generic version of these drugs, which included the cost of the active medicinal ingredients, the excipients (nonactive ingredients), the prefilled injectable device plus needles (for subcutaneous drugs), transportation, 10% profit, and 27% tax on profit.

The national prices of the branded medications for obesity were significantly higher than the estimated minimum prices of potential generic drugs (see Table).

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

The lowest available national prices of drugs to treat obesity are up to 20 times higher than the estimated cost of profitable generic versions of the same agents, according to a new analysis.
 

The findings by Jacob Levi, MBBS, and colleagues were published in Obesity.

“Our study highlights the inequality in pricing that exists for effective antiobesity medications, which are largely unaffordable in most countries,” Dr. Levi, from Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust, London, said in a press release.

“We show that these drugs can actually be produced and sold profitably for low prices,” he summarized. “A public health approach that prioritizes improving access to medications should be adopted, instead of allowing companies to maximize profits,” Dr. Levi urged.

Dr. Levi and colleagues studied the oral agents orlistat, naltrexone/bupropion, topiramate/phentermine, and semaglutide, and subcutaneous liraglutide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide (all approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat obesity, except for oral semaglutide and subcutaneous tirzepatide, which are not yet approved to treat obesity in the absence of type 2 diabetes).

“Worldwide, more people are dying from diabetes and clinical obesity than HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria combined now,” senior author Andrew Hill, MD, department of pharmacology and therapeutics, University of Liverpool, England, pointed out.
 

We need to repeat the low-cost success story with obesity drugs

“Millions of lives have been saved by treating infectious diseases at low cost in poor countries,” Dr. Hill continued. “Now we need to repeat this medical success story, with mass treatment of diabetes and clinical obesity at low prices.”

However, in an accompanying editorial, Eric A. Finkelstein, MD, and Junxing Chay, PhD, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, maintain that “It would be great if everyone had affordable access to all medicines that might improve their health. Yet that is simply not possible, nor will it ever be.”

“What is truly needed is a better way to ration the health care dollars currently available in efforts to maximize population health. That is the challenge ahead not just for [antiobesity medications] but for all treatments,” they say.

“Greater use of cost-effectiveness analysis and direct negotiations, while maintaining the patent system, represents an appropriate approach for allocating scarce health care resources in the United States and beyond,” they continue.
 

Lowest current patented drug prices vs. estimated generic drug prices

New medications for obesity were highly effective in recent clinical trials, but high prices limit the ability of patients to get these medications, Dr. Levi and colleagues write.

They analyzed prices for obesity drugs in 16 low-, middle-, and high-income countries: Australia, Bangladesh, China, France, Germany, India, Kenya, Morocco, Norway, Peru, Pakistan, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Vietnam.

The researchers assessed the price of a 30-day supply of each of the studied branded drugs based on the lowest available price (in 2021 U.S. dollars) from multiple online national price databases.

Then they calculated the estimated minimum price of a 30-day supply of a potential generic version of these drugs, which included the cost of the active medicinal ingredients, the excipients (nonactive ingredients), the prefilled injectable device plus needles (for subcutaneous drugs), transportation, 10% profit, and 27% tax on profit.

The national prices of the branded medications for obesity were significantly higher than the estimated minimum prices of potential generic drugs (see Table).

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

The lowest available national prices of drugs to treat obesity are up to 20 times higher than the estimated cost of profitable generic versions of the same agents, according to a new analysis.
 

The findings by Jacob Levi, MBBS, and colleagues were published in Obesity.

“Our study highlights the inequality in pricing that exists for effective antiobesity medications, which are largely unaffordable in most countries,” Dr. Levi, from Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust, London, said in a press release.

“We show that these drugs can actually be produced and sold profitably for low prices,” he summarized. “A public health approach that prioritizes improving access to medications should be adopted, instead of allowing companies to maximize profits,” Dr. Levi urged.

Dr. Levi and colleagues studied the oral agents orlistat, naltrexone/bupropion, topiramate/phentermine, and semaglutide, and subcutaneous liraglutide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide (all approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat obesity, except for oral semaglutide and subcutaneous tirzepatide, which are not yet approved to treat obesity in the absence of type 2 diabetes).

“Worldwide, more people are dying from diabetes and clinical obesity than HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria combined now,” senior author Andrew Hill, MD, department of pharmacology and therapeutics, University of Liverpool, England, pointed out.
 

We need to repeat the low-cost success story with obesity drugs

“Millions of lives have been saved by treating infectious diseases at low cost in poor countries,” Dr. Hill continued. “Now we need to repeat this medical success story, with mass treatment of diabetes and clinical obesity at low prices.”

However, in an accompanying editorial, Eric A. Finkelstein, MD, and Junxing Chay, PhD, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, maintain that “It would be great if everyone had affordable access to all medicines that might improve their health. Yet that is simply not possible, nor will it ever be.”

“What is truly needed is a better way to ration the health care dollars currently available in efforts to maximize population health. That is the challenge ahead not just for [antiobesity medications] but for all treatments,” they say.

“Greater use of cost-effectiveness analysis and direct negotiations, while maintaining the patent system, represents an appropriate approach for allocating scarce health care resources in the United States and beyond,” they continue.
 

Lowest current patented drug prices vs. estimated generic drug prices

New medications for obesity were highly effective in recent clinical trials, but high prices limit the ability of patients to get these medications, Dr. Levi and colleagues write.

They analyzed prices for obesity drugs in 16 low-, middle-, and high-income countries: Australia, Bangladesh, China, France, Germany, India, Kenya, Morocco, Norway, Peru, Pakistan, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Vietnam.

The researchers assessed the price of a 30-day supply of each of the studied branded drugs based on the lowest available price (in 2021 U.S. dollars) from multiple online national price databases.

Then they calculated the estimated minimum price of a 30-day supply of a potential generic version of these drugs, which included the cost of the active medicinal ingredients, the excipients (nonactive ingredients), the prefilled injectable device plus needles (for subcutaneous drugs), transportation, 10% profit, and 27% tax on profit.

The national prices of the branded medications for obesity were significantly higher than the estimated minimum prices of potential generic drugs (see Table).

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

Prediction models that incorporate more than just treatment status could rank order heart transplant candidates by urgency more effectively than the current system, a modeling study suggests.

Since 2018, the U.S. heart transplant allocation system has ranked heart candidates according to six treatment-based “statuses” (up from three used previously), ignoring many objective patient characteristics, the authors write.

Their study showed no significant difference in survival between statuses four and six, and status five had lower survival than status four.

“We expected multivariable prediction models to outperform the six-status system when it comes to rank ordering patients by how likely they are to die on the wait list (medical urgency),” William F. Parker, MD, MS, PhD, of the University of Chicago, told this news organization.

“However, we were surprised to see that the statuses were out of order,” he said. “Status five patients are more urgent than status three or status four patients,” mainly because most are in renal failure and listed for multiorgan transplantation with a kidney.

Objective physiologic measurements, such as glomerular filtration rate (GFR), had high variable importance, offering a minimally invasive measurement with predictive power in assessing medical urgency. Therefore, including GFR and other variables such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) could improve the accuracy of the allocation system in identifying the most medically urgent candidates, Dr. Parker and colleagues suggest.

The study was published online in JACC: Heart Failure.
 

‘Moderate ability’ to rank order

The investigators assessed the effectiveness of the standard six-status ranking system and several novel prediction models in identifying the most urgent heart transplant candidates. The primary outcome was death before receipt of a heart transplant.

The final data set contained 32,294 candidates (mean age, 53 years; 74%, men); 27,200 made up the prepolicy training set and 5,094 were included in the postpolicy test set.

The team evaluated the accuracy of the six-status system using Harrell’s C-index and log-rank tests of Kaplan-Meier estimated survival by status for candidates listed after the policy change (November 2018 to March 2020) in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data set.

They then developed Cox proportional hazards models and random survival forest models using prepolicy data (2010-2017). Predictor variables included age, diagnosis, laboratory measurements, hemodynamics, and supportive treatment at the time of listing.

They found that the six-status ranking at listing has had “moderate ability” to rank order candidates.

As Dr. Parker indicated, statuses four and six had no significant difference in survival, and status five had lower survival than status four.

The investigators’ multivariable prediction models derived with prepolicy data ranked candidates correctly more often than the six-status rankings. Objective physiologic measurements, such as GFR and ECMO, were identified as having significant importance with regard to ranking by urgency.

“The novel prediction models we developed … could be implemented by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) as allocation policy and would be better than the status quo,” Dr. Parker said. “However, I think we could do even better using the newer data collected after 2018.” 
 

Modifications underway

The OPTN Heart Transplantation Committee is currently working on developing a new framework for allocating deceased donor hearts called Continuous Distribution.

“The six-tiered system works well, and it better stratifies the most medically urgent candidates than the previous allocation framework,” the leadership of the United Network for Organ Sharing Heart Transplantation Committee, including Chair Richard C. Daly, MD, Mayo Clinic; Vice-Chair Jondavid Menteer, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles; and former Chair Shelley Hall, MD, Baylor University Medical Center, told this news organization.

“That said, it is always appropriate to review and adjust variables that affect the medical urgency attribute for heart allocation.”

The new framework will change how patients are prioritized, they said. “Continuous distribution will consider all patient factors, including medical urgency, together to determine the order of an organ offer, and no single factor will decide an organ match.

“The goal is to increase fairness by moving to a points-based allocation framework that allows candidates to be compared using a single score composed of multiple factors.

“Furthermore,” they added, “continuous distribution provides a framework that will allow modifications of the criteria defining medical urgency (and other attributes of allocation) to a finer degree than the current policy. … Once continuous distribution is in place and the OPTN has policy monitoring data, the committee may consider and model different ways of defining medical urgency.”

Kiran K. Khush, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, coauthor of a related commentary, elaborated. “The composite allocation score (CAS) will consist of a ‘points-based system,’ in which candidates will be assigned points based on (1) medical urgency, (2) anticipated posttransplant survival, (3) candidate biology (eg., special characteristics that may result in higher prioritization, such as blood type O and allosensitization), (4) access (eg., prior living donor, pediatric patient), and (5) placement efficacy (travel, proximity).”

Candidates will be assigned points based on these categories, and will be rank ordered for each donor offer.

Dr. Khush and colleagues propose that a multivariable model – such as the ones described in the study – would be the best way to assign points for medical urgency.

“This system will be more equitable than the current system,” Dr. Khush said, “because it will better prioritize the sickest candidates while improving access for patients who are currently at a disadvantage [for example, blood O, highly sensitized patients], and will also remove artificial geographic boundaries [for example, the current 500-mile rule for heart allocation].”
 

Going further

Jesse D. Schold, PhD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, raises concerns about other aspects of the heart allocation system in another related commentary.

“One big issue with our data in transplantation … is that, while it is very comprehensive for capturing transplant candidates and recipients, there is no data collection for patients and processes of care for patients prior to wait list placement,” he told this news organization. This phase of care is subject to wide variation in practice, he said, “and is likely as important as any to patients – the ability to be referred, evaluated, and placed on a waiting list.”

Report cards that measure quality of care after wait list placement ignore key phases prior to wait list placement, he said. “This may have the unintended consequences of limiting access to care and to the waiting list for patients perceived to be at higher risk, or the use of higher-risk donors, despite their potential survival advantage.

“In contrast,” he said, “quality report cards that incentivize treatment for all patients who may benefit would likely have a greater beneficial impact on patients with end-organ disease.”

There is also significant risk of underlying differences in patient populations between centers, despite the use of multivariable models, he added. This heterogeneity “may not be reflected accurately in the report cards [which] have significant impact for regulatory review, private payer contracting, and center reputation.”

Some of these concerns may be addressed in the new OPTN Modernization Initiative, according to David Bowman, a public affairs specialist at the Health Resources and Services Administration. One of the goals of the initiative “is to ensure that the OPTN Board of Directors is high functioning, has greater independence, and represents the diversity of communities served by the OPTN,” he told this news organization. “Strengthened governance will lead to effective policy development and implementation, and enhanced transparency and accountability of the process.”

Addressing another concern about the system, Savitri Fedson, MD, of the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, wonders in a related editorial whether organ donors and recipients should know more about each other, and if so, could that reverse the ongoing downward trend in organ acceptance?

Although some organizations are in favor of sharing more information, Dr. Fedson notes that “less information may have the greater benefit.” She writes, “We might realize that the simplest approach is often the best: a fulsome thank you for the donor’s gift that is willingly given to a stranger without expectation of payment, and on the recipient side, the knowledge that an organ is of good quality.

“The transplant patient can be comforted with the understanding that the risk of disease transmission, while not zero, is low, and that their survival following acceptance of an organ is better than languishing on a waiting list.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Parker, Dr. Khush, Dr. Schold, and Dr. Fedson report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Prediction models that incorporate more than just treatment status could rank order heart transplant candidates by urgency more effectively than the current system, a modeling study suggests.

Since 2018, the U.S. heart transplant allocation system has ranked heart candidates according to six treatment-based “statuses” (up from three used previously), ignoring many objective patient characteristics, the authors write.

Their study showed no significant difference in survival between statuses four and six, and status five had lower survival than status four.

“We expected multivariable prediction models to outperform the six-status system when it comes to rank ordering patients by how likely they are to die on the wait list (medical urgency),” William F. Parker, MD, MS, PhD, of the University of Chicago, told this news organization.

“However, we were surprised to see that the statuses were out of order,” he said. “Status five patients are more urgent than status three or status four patients,” mainly because most are in renal failure and listed for multiorgan transplantation with a kidney.

Objective physiologic measurements, such as glomerular filtration rate (GFR), had high variable importance, offering a minimally invasive measurement with predictive power in assessing medical urgency. Therefore, including GFR and other variables such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) could improve the accuracy of the allocation system in identifying the most medically urgent candidates, Dr. Parker and colleagues suggest.

The study was published online in JACC: Heart Failure.
 

‘Moderate ability’ to rank order

The investigators assessed the effectiveness of the standard six-status ranking system and several novel prediction models in identifying the most urgent heart transplant candidates. The primary outcome was death before receipt of a heart transplant.

The final data set contained 32,294 candidates (mean age, 53 years; 74%, men); 27,200 made up the prepolicy training set and 5,094 were included in the postpolicy test set.

The team evaluated the accuracy of the six-status system using Harrell’s C-index and log-rank tests of Kaplan-Meier estimated survival by status for candidates listed after the policy change (November 2018 to March 2020) in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data set.

They then developed Cox proportional hazards models and random survival forest models using prepolicy data (2010-2017). Predictor variables included age, diagnosis, laboratory measurements, hemodynamics, and supportive treatment at the time of listing.

They found that the six-status ranking at listing has had “moderate ability” to rank order candidates.

As Dr. Parker indicated, statuses four and six had no significant difference in survival, and status five had lower survival than status four.

The investigators’ multivariable prediction models derived with prepolicy data ranked candidates correctly more often than the six-status rankings. Objective physiologic measurements, such as GFR and ECMO, were identified as having significant importance with regard to ranking by urgency.

“The novel prediction models we developed … could be implemented by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) as allocation policy and would be better than the status quo,” Dr. Parker said. “However, I think we could do even better using the newer data collected after 2018.” 
 

Modifications underway

The OPTN Heart Transplantation Committee is currently working on developing a new framework for allocating deceased donor hearts called Continuous Distribution.

“The six-tiered system works well, and it better stratifies the most medically urgent candidates than the previous allocation framework,” the leadership of the United Network for Organ Sharing Heart Transplantation Committee, including Chair Richard C. Daly, MD, Mayo Clinic; Vice-Chair Jondavid Menteer, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles; and former Chair Shelley Hall, MD, Baylor University Medical Center, told this news organization.

“That said, it is always appropriate to review and adjust variables that affect the medical urgency attribute for heart allocation.”

The new framework will change how patients are prioritized, they said. “Continuous distribution will consider all patient factors, including medical urgency, together to determine the order of an organ offer, and no single factor will decide an organ match.

“The goal is to increase fairness by moving to a points-based allocation framework that allows candidates to be compared using a single score composed of multiple factors.

“Furthermore,” they added, “continuous distribution provides a framework that will allow modifications of the criteria defining medical urgency (and other attributes of allocation) to a finer degree than the current policy. … Once continuous distribution is in place and the OPTN has policy monitoring data, the committee may consider and model different ways of defining medical urgency.”

Kiran K. Khush, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, coauthor of a related commentary, elaborated. “The composite allocation score (CAS) will consist of a ‘points-based system,’ in which candidates will be assigned points based on (1) medical urgency, (2) anticipated posttransplant survival, (3) candidate biology (eg., special characteristics that may result in higher prioritization, such as blood type O and allosensitization), (4) access (eg., prior living donor, pediatric patient), and (5) placement efficacy (travel, proximity).”

Candidates will be assigned points based on these categories, and will be rank ordered for each donor offer.

Dr. Khush and colleagues propose that a multivariable model – such as the ones described in the study – would be the best way to assign points for medical urgency.

“This system will be more equitable than the current system,” Dr. Khush said, “because it will better prioritize the sickest candidates while improving access for patients who are currently at a disadvantage [for example, blood O, highly sensitized patients], and will also remove artificial geographic boundaries [for example, the current 500-mile rule for heart allocation].”
 

Going further

Jesse D. Schold, PhD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, raises concerns about other aspects of the heart allocation system in another related commentary.

“One big issue with our data in transplantation … is that, while it is very comprehensive for capturing transplant candidates and recipients, there is no data collection for patients and processes of care for patients prior to wait list placement,” he told this news organization. This phase of care is subject to wide variation in practice, he said, “and is likely as important as any to patients – the ability to be referred, evaluated, and placed on a waiting list.”

Report cards that measure quality of care after wait list placement ignore key phases prior to wait list placement, he said. “This may have the unintended consequences of limiting access to care and to the waiting list for patients perceived to be at higher risk, or the use of higher-risk donors, despite their potential survival advantage.

“In contrast,” he said, “quality report cards that incentivize treatment for all patients who may benefit would likely have a greater beneficial impact on patients with end-organ disease.”

There is also significant risk of underlying differences in patient populations between centers, despite the use of multivariable models, he added. This heterogeneity “may not be reflected accurately in the report cards [which] have significant impact for regulatory review, private payer contracting, and center reputation.”

Some of these concerns may be addressed in the new OPTN Modernization Initiative, according to David Bowman, a public affairs specialist at the Health Resources and Services Administration. One of the goals of the initiative “is to ensure that the OPTN Board of Directors is high functioning, has greater independence, and represents the diversity of communities served by the OPTN,” he told this news organization. “Strengthened governance will lead to effective policy development and implementation, and enhanced transparency and accountability of the process.”

Addressing another concern about the system, Savitri Fedson, MD, of the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, wonders in a related editorial whether organ donors and recipients should know more about each other, and if so, could that reverse the ongoing downward trend in organ acceptance?

Although some organizations are in favor of sharing more information, Dr. Fedson notes that “less information may have the greater benefit.” She writes, “We might realize that the simplest approach is often the best: a fulsome thank you for the donor’s gift that is willingly given to a stranger without expectation of payment, and on the recipient side, the knowledge that an organ is of good quality.

“The transplant patient can be comforted with the understanding that the risk of disease transmission, while not zero, is low, and that their survival following acceptance of an organ is better than languishing on a waiting list.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Parker, Dr. Khush, Dr. Schold, and Dr. Fedson report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Prediction models that incorporate more than just treatment status could rank order heart transplant candidates by urgency more effectively than the current system, a modeling study suggests.

Since 2018, the U.S. heart transplant allocation system has ranked heart candidates according to six treatment-based “statuses” (up from three used previously), ignoring many objective patient characteristics, the authors write.

Their study showed no significant difference in survival between statuses four and six, and status five had lower survival than status four.

“We expected multivariable prediction models to outperform the six-status system when it comes to rank ordering patients by how likely they are to die on the wait list (medical urgency),” William F. Parker, MD, MS, PhD, of the University of Chicago, told this news organization.

“However, we were surprised to see that the statuses were out of order,” he said. “Status five patients are more urgent than status three or status four patients,” mainly because most are in renal failure and listed for multiorgan transplantation with a kidney.

Objective physiologic measurements, such as glomerular filtration rate (GFR), had high variable importance, offering a minimally invasive measurement with predictive power in assessing medical urgency. Therefore, including GFR and other variables such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) could improve the accuracy of the allocation system in identifying the most medically urgent candidates, Dr. Parker and colleagues suggest.

The study was published online in JACC: Heart Failure.
 

‘Moderate ability’ to rank order

The investigators assessed the effectiveness of the standard six-status ranking system and several novel prediction models in identifying the most urgent heart transplant candidates. The primary outcome was death before receipt of a heart transplant.

The final data set contained 32,294 candidates (mean age, 53 years; 74%, men); 27,200 made up the prepolicy training set and 5,094 were included in the postpolicy test set.

The team evaluated the accuracy of the six-status system using Harrell’s C-index and log-rank tests of Kaplan-Meier estimated survival by status for candidates listed after the policy change (November 2018 to March 2020) in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data set.

They then developed Cox proportional hazards models and random survival forest models using prepolicy data (2010-2017). Predictor variables included age, diagnosis, laboratory measurements, hemodynamics, and supportive treatment at the time of listing.

They found that the six-status ranking at listing has had “moderate ability” to rank order candidates.

As Dr. Parker indicated, statuses four and six had no significant difference in survival, and status five had lower survival than status four.

The investigators’ multivariable prediction models derived with prepolicy data ranked candidates correctly more often than the six-status rankings. Objective physiologic measurements, such as GFR and ECMO, were identified as having significant importance with regard to ranking by urgency.

“The novel prediction models we developed … could be implemented by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) as allocation policy and would be better than the status quo,” Dr. Parker said. “However, I think we could do even better using the newer data collected after 2018.” 
 

Modifications underway

The OPTN Heart Transplantation Committee is currently working on developing a new framework for allocating deceased donor hearts called Continuous Distribution.

“The six-tiered system works well, and it better stratifies the most medically urgent candidates than the previous allocation framework,” the leadership of the United Network for Organ Sharing Heart Transplantation Committee, including Chair Richard C. Daly, MD, Mayo Clinic; Vice-Chair Jondavid Menteer, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles; and former Chair Shelley Hall, MD, Baylor University Medical Center, told this news organization.

“That said, it is always appropriate to review and adjust variables that affect the medical urgency attribute for heart allocation.”

The new framework will change how patients are prioritized, they said. “Continuous distribution will consider all patient factors, including medical urgency, together to determine the order of an organ offer, and no single factor will decide an organ match.

“The goal is to increase fairness by moving to a points-based allocation framework that allows candidates to be compared using a single score composed of multiple factors.

“Furthermore,” they added, “continuous distribution provides a framework that will allow modifications of the criteria defining medical urgency (and other attributes of allocation) to a finer degree than the current policy. … Once continuous distribution is in place and the OPTN has policy monitoring data, the committee may consider and model different ways of defining medical urgency.”

Kiran K. Khush, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, coauthor of a related commentary, elaborated. “The composite allocation score (CAS) will consist of a ‘points-based system,’ in which candidates will be assigned points based on (1) medical urgency, (2) anticipated posttransplant survival, (3) candidate biology (eg., special characteristics that may result in higher prioritization, such as blood type O and allosensitization), (4) access (eg., prior living donor, pediatric patient), and (5) placement efficacy (travel, proximity).”

Candidates will be assigned points based on these categories, and will be rank ordered for each donor offer.

Dr. Khush and colleagues propose that a multivariable model – such as the ones described in the study – would be the best way to assign points for medical urgency.

“This system will be more equitable than the current system,” Dr. Khush said, “because it will better prioritize the sickest candidates while improving access for patients who are currently at a disadvantage [for example, blood O, highly sensitized patients], and will also remove artificial geographic boundaries [for example, the current 500-mile rule for heart allocation].”
 

Going further

Jesse D. Schold, PhD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, raises concerns about other aspects of the heart allocation system in another related commentary.

“One big issue with our data in transplantation … is that, while it is very comprehensive for capturing transplant candidates and recipients, there is no data collection for patients and processes of care for patients prior to wait list placement,” he told this news organization. This phase of care is subject to wide variation in practice, he said, “and is likely as important as any to patients – the ability to be referred, evaluated, and placed on a waiting list.”

Report cards that measure quality of care after wait list placement ignore key phases prior to wait list placement, he said. “This may have the unintended consequences of limiting access to care and to the waiting list for patients perceived to be at higher risk, or the use of higher-risk donors, despite their potential survival advantage.

“In contrast,” he said, “quality report cards that incentivize treatment for all patients who may benefit would likely have a greater beneficial impact on patients with end-organ disease.”

There is also significant risk of underlying differences in patient populations between centers, despite the use of multivariable models, he added. This heterogeneity “may not be reflected accurately in the report cards [which] have significant impact for regulatory review, private payer contracting, and center reputation.”

Some of these concerns may be addressed in the new OPTN Modernization Initiative, according to David Bowman, a public affairs specialist at the Health Resources and Services Administration. One of the goals of the initiative “is to ensure that the OPTN Board of Directors is high functioning, has greater independence, and represents the diversity of communities served by the OPTN,” he told this news organization. “Strengthened governance will lead to effective policy development and implementation, and enhanced transparency and accountability of the process.”

Addressing another concern about the system, Savitri Fedson, MD, of the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, wonders in a related editorial whether organ donors and recipients should know more about each other, and if so, could that reverse the ongoing downward trend in organ acceptance?

Although some organizations are in favor of sharing more information, Dr. Fedson notes that “less information may have the greater benefit.” She writes, “We might realize that the simplest approach is often the best: a fulsome thank you for the donor’s gift that is willingly given to a stranger without expectation of payment, and on the recipient side, the knowledge that an organ is of good quality.

“The transplant patient can be comforted with the understanding that the risk of disease transmission, while not zero, is low, and that their survival following acceptance of an organ is better than languishing on a waiting list.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Parker, Dr. Khush, Dr. Schold, and Dr. Fedson report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Erratic sleep patterns, dysregulated transitions between sleep and wake cycles, and excessive sleep during the day are linked to a worsening of schizophrenia symptoms, new research shows.

University of Pittsburgh

The findings also showed that people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSDs) who lived in residential facilities experienced rigid routines, which correlated with a higher degree of negative symptoms.

The rigid routines were problematic for the patients living in residential settings, lead investigator Fabio Ferrarelli, MD, PhD, told this news organization. Dr. Ferrarelli is an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh.

“Engaging in different activities at different times in activities associated with motivation and social interaction – this helps to ameliorate difficult-to-treat negative symptoms,” he said.

The findings were published online in Molecular Psychiatry.


 

Need to increase activity levels

While there is no shortage of research on sleep disturbances among people with schizophrenia, research focusing specifically on rest-activity rhythm disturbances and their relationships to symptoms of schizophrenia has been limited by small sample sizes or the lack of a control group, the investigators note.

To address this research gap, the investigators recruited 230 patients with SSD from participating residential facilities and communities throughout Italy. The participants included 108 healthy control participants, 54 community-dwelling patients with SSD who were receiving outpatient services, and 68 patients with SSD who were living in residential facilities.

All participants wore an actigraph for 7 consecutive days so that investigators could monitor sleep-wake patterns.

Compared with healthy control participants, both SSD groups had more total sleep time and spent more time resting or being passive (P < .001). In contrast, healthy control participants were much more active.

Part of the explanation for this may be that most of the control participants had jobs or attended school. In addition, the investigators note that many medications used to treat SSD can be highly sedating, causing some patients to sleep up to 15 hours per day.

Among residential participants with SSD, there was a higher level of inter-daily stability and higher daily rest-activity-rest fragmentation than occurred among healthy control participants or community-dwelling patients with SSD (P < .001). There was also a higher level of negative symptoms among residential participants with SSD than among the community-dwelling group with SSD.

When the findings were taken together, Dr. Ferrarelli and his team interpreted them to mean that inter-daily stability could reflect premature aging or neurodegenerative processes in patients with more severe forms of schizophrenia.

Another explanation could be that the rigid routine of the residential facility was making negative symptoms worse, Dr. Ferrarelli said. It is important to add variety into the mix – getting people to engage in different activities at different times of day would likely help residential SSD patients overcome negative symptoms of the disorder.

Although participants were recruited in Italy, Dr. Ferrarelli said he believes the findings are generalizable.
 

Bidirectional relationship?

Commenting on the findings, Matcheri Keshavan, MD, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said the results are consistent with “well-known clinical observations that SSD patients tend to spend more time in bed and have more dysregulated sleep.

Harvard Medical School

“Negative symptoms are also common, especially in residential patients. However, it is difficult to determine causality, as we do not know whether excessive sleepiness and decreased physical activity cause negative symptoms, or vice versa, or whether this is a bidirectional relationship,” Dr. Keshavan said.

He emphasized that physical exercise is known to increase sleep quality for people with mental illness and may also improve negative symptoms. “A useful approach in clinical practice is to increase activity levels, especially physical activities like walking and gardening.”

Dr. Keshavan said he would like to see future research that focuses on whether an intervention such as aerobic exercise would improve sleep quality as well as negative symptoms.

He also said that future research should ideally examine the characteristics of sleep alterations in schizophrenia.

“For example, while sleep duration is increased in schizophrenia, studies suggest that time spent in deep sleep is reduced; sleep spindles, which are important for consolidating memory during sleep, are also reduced. Correcting these deficits may improve negative symptoms and cognitive deficits,” he added.

The study was funded by the Italian Ministry of Health and the National Institute of Mental Health. There were no conflicts of interest.

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

Erratic sleep patterns, dysregulated transitions between sleep and wake cycles, and excessive sleep during the day are linked to a worsening of schizophrenia symptoms, new research shows.

University of Pittsburgh

The findings also showed that people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSDs) who lived in residential facilities experienced rigid routines, which correlated with a higher degree of negative symptoms.

The rigid routines were problematic for the patients living in residential settings, lead investigator Fabio Ferrarelli, MD, PhD, told this news organization. Dr. Ferrarelli is an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh.

“Engaging in different activities at different times in activities associated with motivation and social interaction – this helps to ameliorate difficult-to-treat negative symptoms,” he said.

The findings were published online in Molecular Psychiatry.


 

Need to increase activity levels

While there is no shortage of research on sleep disturbances among people with schizophrenia, research focusing specifically on rest-activity rhythm disturbances and their relationships to symptoms of schizophrenia has been limited by small sample sizes or the lack of a control group, the investigators note.

To address this research gap, the investigators recruited 230 patients with SSD from participating residential facilities and communities throughout Italy. The participants included 108 healthy control participants, 54 community-dwelling patients with SSD who were receiving outpatient services, and 68 patients with SSD who were living in residential facilities.

All participants wore an actigraph for 7 consecutive days so that investigators could monitor sleep-wake patterns.

Compared with healthy control participants, both SSD groups had more total sleep time and spent more time resting or being passive (P < .001). In contrast, healthy control participants were much more active.

Part of the explanation for this may be that most of the control participants had jobs or attended school. In addition, the investigators note that many medications used to treat SSD can be highly sedating, causing some patients to sleep up to 15 hours per day.

Among residential participants with SSD, there was a higher level of inter-daily stability and higher daily rest-activity-rest fragmentation than occurred among healthy control participants or community-dwelling patients with SSD (P < .001). There was also a higher level of negative symptoms among residential participants with SSD than among the community-dwelling group with SSD.

When the findings were taken together, Dr. Ferrarelli and his team interpreted them to mean that inter-daily stability could reflect premature aging or neurodegenerative processes in patients with more severe forms of schizophrenia.

Another explanation could be that the rigid routine of the residential facility was making negative symptoms worse, Dr. Ferrarelli said. It is important to add variety into the mix – getting people to engage in different activities at different times of day would likely help residential SSD patients overcome negative symptoms of the disorder.

Although participants were recruited in Italy, Dr. Ferrarelli said he believes the findings are generalizable.
 

Bidirectional relationship?

Commenting on the findings, Matcheri Keshavan, MD, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said the results are consistent with “well-known clinical observations that SSD patients tend to spend more time in bed and have more dysregulated sleep.

Harvard Medical School

“Negative symptoms are also common, especially in residential patients. However, it is difficult to determine causality, as we do not know whether excessive sleepiness and decreased physical activity cause negative symptoms, or vice versa, or whether this is a bidirectional relationship,” Dr. Keshavan said.

He emphasized that physical exercise is known to increase sleep quality for people with mental illness and may also improve negative symptoms. “A useful approach in clinical practice is to increase activity levels, especially physical activities like walking and gardening.”

Dr. Keshavan said he would like to see future research that focuses on whether an intervention such as aerobic exercise would improve sleep quality as well as negative symptoms.

He also said that future research should ideally examine the characteristics of sleep alterations in schizophrenia.

“For example, while sleep duration is increased in schizophrenia, studies suggest that time spent in deep sleep is reduced; sleep spindles, which are important for consolidating memory during sleep, are also reduced. Correcting these deficits may improve negative symptoms and cognitive deficits,” he added.

The study was funded by the Italian Ministry of Health and the National Institute of Mental Health. There were no conflicts of interest.

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

Erratic sleep patterns, dysregulated transitions between sleep and wake cycles, and excessive sleep during the day are linked to a worsening of schizophrenia symptoms, new research shows.

University of Pittsburgh

The findings also showed that people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSDs) who lived in residential facilities experienced rigid routines, which correlated with a higher degree of negative symptoms.

The rigid routines were problematic for the patients living in residential settings, lead investigator Fabio Ferrarelli, MD, PhD, told this news organization. Dr. Ferrarelli is an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh.

“Engaging in different activities at different times in activities associated with motivation and social interaction – this helps to ameliorate difficult-to-treat negative symptoms,” he said.

The findings were published online in Molecular Psychiatry.


 

Need to increase activity levels

While there is no shortage of research on sleep disturbances among people with schizophrenia, research focusing specifically on rest-activity rhythm disturbances and their relationships to symptoms of schizophrenia has been limited by small sample sizes or the lack of a control group, the investigators note.

To address this research gap, the investigators recruited 230 patients with SSD from participating residential facilities and communities throughout Italy. The participants included 108 healthy control participants, 54 community-dwelling patients with SSD who were receiving outpatient services, and 68 patients with SSD who were living in residential facilities.

All participants wore an actigraph for 7 consecutive days so that investigators could monitor sleep-wake patterns.

Compared with healthy control participants, both SSD groups had more total sleep time and spent more time resting or being passive (P < .001). In contrast, healthy control participants were much more active.

Part of the explanation for this may be that most of the control participants had jobs or attended school. In addition, the investigators note that many medications used to treat SSD can be highly sedating, causing some patients to sleep up to 15 hours per day.

Among residential participants with SSD, there was a higher level of inter-daily stability and higher daily rest-activity-rest fragmentation than occurred among healthy control participants or community-dwelling patients with SSD (P < .001). There was also a higher level of negative symptoms among residential participants with SSD than among the community-dwelling group with SSD.

When the findings were taken together, Dr. Ferrarelli and his team interpreted them to mean that inter-daily stability could reflect premature aging or neurodegenerative processes in patients with more severe forms of schizophrenia.

Another explanation could be that the rigid routine of the residential facility was making negative symptoms worse, Dr. Ferrarelli said. It is important to add variety into the mix – getting people to engage in different activities at different times of day would likely help residential SSD patients overcome negative symptoms of the disorder.

Although participants were recruited in Italy, Dr. Ferrarelli said he believes the findings are generalizable.
 

Bidirectional relationship?

Commenting on the findings, Matcheri Keshavan, MD, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said the results are consistent with “well-known clinical observations that SSD patients tend to spend more time in bed and have more dysregulated sleep.

Harvard Medical School

“Negative symptoms are also common, especially in residential patients. However, it is difficult to determine causality, as we do not know whether excessive sleepiness and decreased physical activity cause negative symptoms, or vice versa, or whether this is a bidirectional relationship,” Dr. Keshavan said.

He emphasized that physical exercise is known to increase sleep quality for people with mental illness and may also improve negative symptoms. “A useful approach in clinical practice is to increase activity levels, especially physical activities like walking and gardening.”

Dr. Keshavan said he would like to see future research that focuses on whether an intervention such as aerobic exercise would improve sleep quality as well as negative symptoms.

He also said that future research should ideally examine the characteristics of sleep alterations in schizophrenia.

“For example, while sleep duration is increased in schizophrenia, studies suggest that time spent in deep sleep is reduced; sleep spindles, which are important for consolidating memory during sleep, are also reduced. Correcting these deficits may improve negative symptoms and cognitive deficits,” he added.

The study was funded by the Italian Ministry of Health and the National Institute of Mental Health. There were no conflicts of interest.

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

ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot, may be helpful for patients with cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and their clinicians by generating easy-to-understand information about the disease, a new study suggests.

ChatGPT can regurgitate correct and reproducible responses to commonly asked patient questions on cirrhosis and HCC; however, the majority of the correct responses were labeled by clinician specialists as “correct but inadequate,” according to the study findings.

The AI tool can also provide empathetic and practical advice to patients and caregivers but falls short in its ability to provide tailored recommendations, the researchers said.

“Patients with cirrhosis and/or liver cancer and their caregivers often have unmet needs and insufficient knowledge about managing and preventing complications of their disease. We found ChatGPT – while it has limitations – can help empower patients and improve health literacy for different populations,” study investigator Brennan Spiegel, MD, director of health services research at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Clinical and Molecular Hepatology.
 

Adjunctive health literacy tool

ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer), developed by OpenAI, is a natural language processing tool that allows users to have personalized conversations with an AI bot capable of providing detailed responses to any question posed.

It has already seen several potential applications in the medical field, but the Cedars-Sinai study is one of the first to examine the chatbot’s ability to answer clinically oriented, disease-specific questions correctly and compare its performance to that of physicians.

The investigators asked ChatGPT 164 questions relevant to patients with cirrhosis and/or HCC across five categories – basic knowledge, diagnosis, treatment, lifestyle, and preventive medicine. The chatbot’s answers were graded independently by two liver transplant specialists.

Overall, ChatGPT answered about 77% of the questions correctly, generating high levels of accuracy in 91 questions across the categories, the researchers reported.

ChatGPT regurgitated extensive knowledge of cirrhosis (79% correct) and HCC (74% correct), but only small proportions were deemed by specialists to be comprehensive (47% in cirrhosis, 41% in HCC).

The chatbot performed better in basic knowledge, lifestyle, and treatment than in the domains of diagnosis and preventive medicine.

The specialists grading ChatGPT felt that 75% of its answers for questions on basic knowledge, treatment, and lifestyle were comprehensive or correct but inadequate. The corresponding percentages for diagnosis and preventive medicine were lower (67% and 50%, respectively). No responses from ChatGPT were graded as completely incorrect.

Responses deemed by the specialists to be “mixed with correct and incorrect/outdated data” were 22% for basic knowledge, 33% for diagnosis, 25% for treatment, 18% for lifestyle, and 50% for preventive medicine.
 

No substitute for specialists

The investigators also tested ChatGPT on cirrhosis quality measures recommended by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and contained in two published questionnaires. ChatGPT answered 77% of the relevant questions correctly but failed to specify decision-making cutoffs and treatment durations.

ChatGPT also lacked knowledge of variations in regional guidelines, such as HCC screening criteria, but it did offer “practical and multifaceted” advice to patients and caregivers about next steps and adjusting to a new diagnosis.

“We believe ChatGPT to be a very useful adjunctive tool for physicians – not a replacement – but adjunctive tool that provides access to reliable and accurate health information that is easy for many to understand,” Dr. Spiegel said in the news release. “We hope that this can help physicians to empower patients and improve health literacy for patients facing challenging conditions such as cirrhosis and liver cancer.”

ChatGPT could enhance clinician workflow by helping to draft a framework for each tailored question asked by patients and caregivers, the researchers wrote.

“Given the high proportion of either comprehensive or correct but inadequate responses and expected continued improvement over time, we foresee that physicians would only need to revise ChatGPT’s responses to best answer patient queries,” they wrote. “This may not only improve the efficiency of physicians but also decrease the overall cost and burden on the healthcare system.”

In addition, ChatGPT could empower patients to be better informed about their care, the researchers noted.

“This allows for patient-led care and facilitates efficient shared decision-making by providing patients with an additional source of information,” they added.

The study had no specific funding. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot, may be helpful for patients with cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and their clinicians by generating easy-to-understand information about the disease, a new study suggests.

ChatGPT can regurgitate correct and reproducible responses to commonly asked patient questions on cirrhosis and HCC; however, the majority of the correct responses were labeled by clinician specialists as “correct but inadequate,” according to the study findings.

The AI tool can also provide empathetic and practical advice to patients and caregivers but falls short in its ability to provide tailored recommendations, the researchers said.

“Patients with cirrhosis and/or liver cancer and their caregivers often have unmet needs and insufficient knowledge about managing and preventing complications of their disease. We found ChatGPT – while it has limitations – can help empower patients and improve health literacy for different populations,” study investigator Brennan Spiegel, MD, director of health services research at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Clinical and Molecular Hepatology.
 

Adjunctive health literacy tool

ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer), developed by OpenAI, is a natural language processing tool that allows users to have personalized conversations with an AI bot capable of providing detailed responses to any question posed.

It has already seen several potential applications in the medical field, but the Cedars-Sinai study is one of the first to examine the chatbot’s ability to answer clinically oriented, disease-specific questions correctly and compare its performance to that of physicians.

The investigators asked ChatGPT 164 questions relevant to patients with cirrhosis and/or HCC across five categories – basic knowledge, diagnosis, treatment, lifestyle, and preventive medicine. The chatbot’s answers were graded independently by two liver transplant specialists.

Overall, ChatGPT answered about 77% of the questions correctly, generating high levels of accuracy in 91 questions across the categories, the researchers reported.

ChatGPT regurgitated extensive knowledge of cirrhosis (79% correct) and HCC (74% correct), but only small proportions were deemed by specialists to be comprehensive (47% in cirrhosis, 41% in HCC).

The chatbot performed better in basic knowledge, lifestyle, and treatment than in the domains of diagnosis and preventive medicine.

The specialists grading ChatGPT felt that 75% of its answers for questions on basic knowledge, treatment, and lifestyle were comprehensive or correct but inadequate. The corresponding percentages for diagnosis and preventive medicine were lower (67% and 50%, respectively). No responses from ChatGPT were graded as completely incorrect.

Responses deemed by the specialists to be “mixed with correct and incorrect/outdated data” were 22% for basic knowledge, 33% for diagnosis, 25% for treatment, 18% for lifestyle, and 50% for preventive medicine.
 

No substitute for specialists

The investigators also tested ChatGPT on cirrhosis quality measures recommended by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and contained in two published questionnaires. ChatGPT answered 77% of the relevant questions correctly but failed to specify decision-making cutoffs and treatment durations.

ChatGPT also lacked knowledge of variations in regional guidelines, such as HCC screening criteria, but it did offer “practical and multifaceted” advice to patients and caregivers about next steps and adjusting to a new diagnosis.

“We believe ChatGPT to be a very useful adjunctive tool for physicians – not a replacement – but adjunctive tool that provides access to reliable and accurate health information that is easy for many to understand,” Dr. Spiegel said in the news release. “We hope that this can help physicians to empower patients and improve health literacy for patients facing challenging conditions such as cirrhosis and liver cancer.”

ChatGPT could enhance clinician workflow by helping to draft a framework for each tailored question asked by patients and caregivers, the researchers wrote.

“Given the high proportion of either comprehensive or correct but inadequate responses and expected continued improvement over time, we foresee that physicians would only need to revise ChatGPT’s responses to best answer patient queries,” they wrote. “This may not only improve the efficiency of physicians but also decrease the overall cost and burden on the healthcare system.”

In addition, ChatGPT could empower patients to be better informed about their care, the researchers noted.

“This allows for patient-led care and facilitates efficient shared decision-making by providing patients with an additional source of information,” they added.

The study had no specific funding. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot, may be helpful for patients with cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and their clinicians by generating easy-to-understand information about the disease, a new study suggests.

ChatGPT can regurgitate correct and reproducible responses to commonly asked patient questions on cirrhosis and HCC; however, the majority of the correct responses were labeled by clinician specialists as “correct but inadequate,” according to the study findings.

The AI tool can also provide empathetic and practical advice to patients and caregivers but falls short in its ability to provide tailored recommendations, the researchers said.

“Patients with cirrhosis and/or liver cancer and their caregivers often have unmet needs and insufficient knowledge about managing and preventing complications of their disease. We found ChatGPT – while it has limitations – can help empower patients and improve health literacy for different populations,” study investigator Brennan Spiegel, MD, director of health services research at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Clinical and Molecular Hepatology.
 

Adjunctive health literacy tool

ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer), developed by OpenAI, is a natural language processing tool that allows users to have personalized conversations with an AI bot capable of providing detailed responses to any question posed.

It has already seen several potential applications in the medical field, but the Cedars-Sinai study is one of the first to examine the chatbot’s ability to answer clinically oriented, disease-specific questions correctly and compare its performance to that of physicians.

The investigators asked ChatGPT 164 questions relevant to patients with cirrhosis and/or HCC across five categories – basic knowledge, diagnosis, treatment, lifestyle, and preventive medicine. The chatbot’s answers were graded independently by two liver transplant specialists.

Overall, ChatGPT answered about 77% of the questions correctly, generating high levels of accuracy in 91 questions across the categories, the researchers reported.

ChatGPT regurgitated extensive knowledge of cirrhosis (79% correct) and HCC (74% correct), but only small proportions were deemed by specialists to be comprehensive (47% in cirrhosis, 41% in HCC).

The chatbot performed better in basic knowledge, lifestyle, and treatment than in the domains of diagnosis and preventive medicine.

The specialists grading ChatGPT felt that 75% of its answers for questions on basic knowledge, treatment, and lifestyle were comprehensive or correct but inadequate. The corresponding percentages for diagnosis and preventive medicine were lower (67% and 50%, respectively). No responses from ChatGPT were graded as completely incorrect.

Responses deemed by the specialists to be “mixed with correct and incorrect/outdated data” were 22% for basic knowledge, 33% for diagnosis, 25% for treatment, 18% for lifestyle, and 50% for preventive medicine.
 

No substitute for specialists

The investigators also tested ChatGPT on cirrhosis quality measures recommended by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and contained in two published questionnaires. ChatGPT answered 77% of the relevant questions correctly but failed to specify decision-making cutoffs and treatment durations.

ChatGPT also lacked knowledge of variations in regional guidelines, such as HCC screening criteria, but it did offer “practical and multifaceted” advice to patients and caregivers about next steps and adjusting to a new diagnosis.

“We believe ChatGPT to be a very useful adjunctive tool for physicians – not a replacement – but adjunctive tool that provides access to reliable and accurate health information that is easy for many to understand,” Dr. Spiegel said in the news release. “We hope that this can help physicians to empower patients and improve health literacy for patients facing challenging conditions such as cirrhosis and liver cancer.”

ChatGPT could enhance clinician workflow by helping to draft a framework for each tailored question asked by patients and caregivers, the researchers wrote.

“Given the high proportion of either comprehensive or correct but inadequate responses and expected continued improvement over time, we foresee that physicians would only need to revise ChatGPT’s responses to best answer patient queries,” they wrote. “This may not only improve the efficiency of physicians but also decrease the overall cost and burden on the healthcare system.”

In addition, ChatGPT could empower patients to be better informed about their care, the researchers noted.

“This allows for patient-led care and facilitates efficient shared decision-making by providing patients with an additional source of information,” they added.

The study had no specific funding. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Everyone’s memory fades to some extent as we age, but not everyone will develop Alzheimer’s disease. Screening the most likely people to develop Alzheimer’s remains an ongoing challenge, as some people present only unambiguous symptoms once their disease is advanced.

A new study in JAMA Network Open suggests that one early clue is found in people’s own self-perception of their memory skills. People who are more aware of their own declining memory capacity are less likely to develop Alzheimer’s, the study suggests.

“Some people are very aware of changes in their memory, but many people are unaware,” said study author Patrizia Vannini, PhD, a neurologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. There are gradations of unawareness of memory loss, Dr. Vannini said, from complete unawareness that anything is wrong, to a partial unawareness that memory is declining.

The study compared the records of 436 participants in the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, an Alzheimer’s research institute housed at the University of Southern California. More than 90% of the participants were White, and generally had a college education. Their average age was 75 years, and 53% of participants were women.

Dr. Vannini and colleagues tracked people whose cognitive function was normal at the beginning of the study, based on the Clinical Dementia Rating. Throughout the course of the study, which included data from 2010 to 2021, 91 of the 436 participants experienced a sustained decline in their Clinical Dementia Rating scores, indicating a risk for eventual Alzheimer’s, whereas the other participants held steady.

The people who declined in cognitive function were less aware of slips in their memory, as assessed by discrepancies between people’s self-reports of their own memory skills and the perceptions of someone in their lives. For this part of the study, Dr. Vannini and colleagues used the Everyday Cognition Questionnaire, which evaluates memory tasks such as shopping without a grocery list or recalling conversations from a few days ago. Both the participant and the study partner rated their performance on such tasks compared to 10 years earlier. Those who were less aware of their memory slips were more likely to experience declines in the Clinical Dementia Rating, compared with people with a heightened concern about memory loss (as measured by being more concerned about memory decline than their study partners).

“Partial or complete unawareness is often related to delayed diagnosis of Alzheimer’s, because the patient is unaware they are having problems,” Dr. Vannini said, adding that this is associated with a poorer prognosis as well.
 

Implications for clinicians

Soo Borson, MD, professor of clinical family medicine at the University of Southern California and coleader of a CDC-funded early dementia detection center at New York University, pointed out that sometimes people are genuinely unaware that their memory is declining, while at other times they know it all too well but say everything is fine when a doctor asks about their current memory status. That may be because people fear the label of “Alzheimer’s,” Dr. Borson suggested, or simply because they don’t want to start a protracted diagnostic pathway that could involve lots of tests and time.

Dr. Borson, who was not involved in the study, noted that the population was predominantly White and well-educated, and by definition included people who were concerned enough about potential memory loss to become part of an Alzheimer’s research network. This limits the generalizability of this study’s results to other populations, Dr. Borson said.

Despite that limitation, in Dr. Borson’s view the study points to the continued importance of clinicians (ideally a primary care doctor who knows the patient well) engaging with patients about their brain health once they reach midlife. A doctor could ask if patients have noticed a decline in their thinking or memory over the last year, for example, or a more open-ended question about any memory concerns.

Although some patients may choose to withhold concerns about their memory, Dr. Borson acknowledged, the overall thrust of these questions is to provide a safe space for patients to air their concerns if they so choose. In some cases it would be appropriate to do a simple memory test on the spot, and then proceed accordingly – either for further tests if something of concern emerges, or to reassure the patient if the test doesn’t yield anything of note. In the latter case some patients will still want further tests for additional reassurance, and Dr. Borson thinks doctors should facilitate that request even if in their own judgment nothing is wrong.

“This is not like testing for impaired kidney function by doing a serum creatinine test,” Dr. Borson said. While the orientation of the health care system is toward quick and easy answers for everything, detecting possible dementia eludes such an approach.

Dr. Vannini reports funding from the National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging. Dr. Borson reported no disclosures.

Everyone’s memory fades to some extent as we age, but not everyone will develop Alzheimer’s disease. Screening the most likely people to develop Alzheimer’s remains an ongoing challenge, as some people present only unambiguous symptoms once their disease is advanced.

A new study in JAMA Network Open suggests that one early clue is found in people’s own self-perception of their memory skills. People who are more aware of their own declining memory capacity are less likely to develop Alzheimer’s, the study suggests.

“Some people are very aware of changes in their memory, but many people are unaware,” said study author Patrizia Vannini, PhD, a neurologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. There are gradations of unawareness of memory loss, Dr. Vannini said, from complete unawareness that anything is wrong, to a partial unawareness that memory is declining.

The study compared the records of 436 participants in the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, an Alzheimer’s research institute housed at the University of Southern California. More than 90% of the participants were White, and generally had a college education. Their average age was 75 years, and 53% of participants were women.

Dr. Vannini and colleagues tracked people whose cognitive function was normal at the beginning of the study, based on the Clinical Dementia Rating. Throughout the course of the study, which included data from 2010 to 2021, 91 of the 436 participants experienced a sustained decline in their Clinical Dementia Rating scores, indicating a risk for eventual Alzheimer’s, whereas the other participants held steady.

The people who declined in cognitive function were less aware of slips in their memory, as assessed by discrepancies between people’s self-reports of their own memory skills and the perceptions of someone in their lives. For this part of the study, Dr. Vannini and colleagues used the Everyday Cognition Questionnaire, which evaluates memory tasks such as shopping without a grocery list or recalling conversations from a few days ago. Both the participant and the study partner rated their performance on such tasks compared to 10 years earlier. Those who were less aware of their memory slips were more likely to experience declines in the Clinical Dementia Rating, compared with people with a heightened concern about memory loss (as measured by being more concerned about memory decline than their study partners).

“Partial or complete unawareness is often related to delayed diagnosis of Alzheimer’s, because the patient is unaware they are having problems,” Dr. Vannini said, adding that this is associated with a poorer prognosis as well.
 

Implications for clinicians

Soo Borson, MD, professor of clinical family medicine at the University of Southern California and coleader of a CDC-funded early dementia detection center at New York University, pointed out that sometimes people are genuinely unaware that their memory is declining, while at other times they know it all too well but say everything is fine when a doctor asks about their current memory status. That may be because people fear the label of “Alzheimer’s,” Dr. Borson suggested, or simply because they don’t want to start a protracted diagnostic pathway that could involve lots of tests and time.

Dr. Borson, who was not involved in the study, noted that the population was predominantly White and well-educated, and by definition included people who were concerned enough about potential memory loss to become part of an Alzheimer’s research network. This limits the generalizability of this study’s results to other populations, Dr. Borson said.

Despite that limitation, in Dr. Borson’s view the study points to the continued importance of clinicians (ideally a primary care doctor who knows the patient well) engaging with patients about their brain health once they reach midlife. A doctor could ask if patients have noticed a decline in their thinking or memory over the last year, for example, or a more open-ended question about any memory concerns.

Although some patients may choose to withhold concerns about their memory, Dr. Borson acknowledged, the overall thrust of these questions is to provide a safe space for patients to air their concerns if they so choose. In some cases it would be appropriate to do a simple memory test on the spot, and then proceed accordingly – either for further tests if something of concern emerges, or to reassure the patient if the test doesn’t yield anything of note. In the latter case some patients will still want further tests for additional reassurance, and Dr. Borson thinks doctors should facilitate that request even if in their own judgment nothing is wrong.

“This is not like testing for impaired kidney function by doing a serum creatinine test,” Dr. Borson said. While the orientation of the health care system is toward quick and easy answers for everything, detecting possible dementia eludes such an approach.

Dr. Vannini reports funding from the National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging. Dr. Borson reported no disclosures.

Everyone’s memory fades to some extent as we age, but not everyone will develop Alzheimer’s disease. Screening the most likely people to develop Alzheimer’s remains an ongoing challenge, as some people present only unambiguous symptoms once their disease is advanced.

A new study in JAMA Network Open suggests that one early clue is found in people’s own self-perception of their memory skills. People who are more aware of their own declining memory capacity are less likely to develop Alzheimer’s, the study suggests.

“Some people are very aware of changes in their memory, but many people are unaware,” said study author Patrizia Vannini, PhD, a neurologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. There are gradations of unawareness of memory loss, Dr. Vannini said, from complete unawareness that anything is wrong, to a partial unawareness that memory is declining.

The study compared the records of 436 participants in the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, an Alzheimer’s research institute housed at the University of Southern California. More than 90% of the participants were White, and generally had a college education. Their average age was 75 years, and 53% of participants were women.

Dr. Vannini and colleagues tracked people whose cognitive function was normal at the beginning of the study, based on the Clinical Dementia Rating. Throughout the course of the study, which included data from 2010 to 2021, 91 of the 436 participants experienced a sustained decline in their Clinical Dementia Rating scores, indicating a risk for eventual Alzheimer’s, whereas the other participants held steady.

The people who declined in cognitive function were less aware of slips in their memory, as assessed by discrepancies between people’s self-reports of their own memory skills and the perceptions of someone in their lives. For this part of the study, Dr. Vannini and colleagues used the Everyday Cognition Questionnaire, which evaluates memory tasks such as shopping without a grocery list or recalling conversations from a few days ago. Both the participant and the study partner rated their performance on such tasks compared to 10 years earlier. Those who were less aware of their memory slips were more likely to experience declines in the Clinical Dementia Rating, compared with people with a heightened concern about memory loss (as measured by being more concerned about memory decline than their study partners).

“Partial or complete unawareness is often related to delayed diagnosis of Alzheimer’s, because the patient is unaware they are having problems,” Dr. Vannini said, adding that this is associated with a poorer prognosis as well.
 

Implications for clinicians

Soo Borson, MD, professor of clinical family medicine at the University of Southern California and coleader of a CDC-funded early dementia detection center at New York University, pointed out that sometimes people are genuinely unaware that their memory is declining, while at other times they know it all too well but say everything is fine when a doctor asks about their current memory status. That may be because people fear the label of “Alzheimer’s,” Dr. Borson suggested, or simply because they don’t want to start a protracted diagnostic pathway that could involve lots of tests and time.

Dr. Borson, who was not involved in the study, noted that the population was predominantly White and well-educated, and by definition included people who were concerned enough about potential memory loss to become part of an Alzheimer’s research network. This limits the generalizability of this study’s results to other populations, Dr. Borson said.

Despite that limitation, in Dr. Borson’s view the study points to the continued importance of clinicians (ideally a primary care doctor who knows the patient well) engaging with patients about their brain health once they reach midlife. A doctor could ask if patients have noticed a decline in their thinking or memory over the last year, for example, or a more open-ended question about any memory concerns.

Although some patients may choose to withhold concerns about their memory, Dr. Borson acknowledged, the overall thrust of these questions is to provide a safe space for patients to air their concerns if they so choose. In some cases it would be appropriate to do a simple memory test on the spot, and then proceed accordingly – either for further tests if something of concern emerges, or to reassure the patient if the test doesn’t yield anything of note. In the latter case some patients will still want further tests for additional reassurance, and Dr. Borson thinks doctors should facilitate that request even if in their own judgment nothing is wrong.

“This is not like testing for impaired kidney function by doing a serum creatinine test,” Dr. Borson said. While the orientation of the health care system is toward quick and easy answers for everything, detecting possible dementia eludes such an approach.

Dr. Vannini reports funding from the National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging. Dr. Borson reported no disclosures.

ORLANDO – Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who undergo surgery or thermal ablation with curative intent are at high risk for recurrence, but currently, no adjuvant therapy standard of care exists for these patients.

New findings signal a promising option for these patients. The combination of the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq) and the angiogenesis inhibitor bevacizumab (Avastin) was associated with a significant improvement in recurrence-free survival, compared with active surveillance, and represents the first option to show efficacy in the adjuvant setting following surgical resection of HCCs for patients at high risk for recurrence.

The recurrence-free survival benefit corresponded to a 28% reduced risk of recurrence or death among patients who received the combination therapy in comparison with active surveillance. However, the overall survival data remain immature.

The data come from an interim analysis of the IMbrave050 trial, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab may be a practice-changing adjuvant treatment options for patients with high-risk HCC,” said lead investigator Pierce Chow, MBBS, PhD, codirector of the National Cancer Centre Singapore Comprehensive Liver Cancer Clinic. He presented the results in an oral abstract session at the meeting. The combination “may also change clinical indications for surgical resection” because clinicians may be more likely to consider resection for patients at extremely high risk for recurrence if the risk of recurrence can be reduced with this combination.

In the previous IMbrave150 trial, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab significantly improved outcomes for patients with high-risk and non–high-risk unresectable HCC, compared with the standard of care sorafenib (Nexavar).

In that trial, the median overall survival in the intention-to-treat population was 19.2 months for patients who received atezolizumab-bevacizumab versus 13.4 months for patients who received sorafenib (P = .0009).

The combination was also associated with improvements in progression-free survival and objective response rates, compared with sorafenib.

On the basis of these results, the IMbrave050 investigators explored whether the same benefits would occur for patients with resectable disease considered to be at high risk for recurrence owing to tumor size, vascular invasion, or poor tumor differentiation. The trial compared the combination for 334 patients with active surveillance, also for 334 patients, in the adjuvant setting.

Patients were considered good candidates for thermal ablation if they had a single tumor greater than 2 cm, but not larger than 5 cm in its longest dimension, or if they had four or fewer tumors, all of which were no larger than 5 cm. For all other patients, surgical resection was recommended.

The median age of the patients was 60. For about half of patients in each arm, the expression level of programmed death–ligand-1 (PD-L1) was 1% or higher.

After a median follow-up of 17.4 months, the 12-month recurrence-free survival rate, as assessed by independent review, was 78% for patients in the treatment arm, compared with 65% for patients who were assigned to active surveillance (hazard ratio, 0.72; P = .012). This finding was generally consistent across clinical subgroups, including groups based on age, sex, race/ethnicity, performance status, PD-L1 expression, number of high-risk features, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage, cancer etiology, procedure type, microvascular invasion, or tumor numbers and size.

Of 133 patients on active surveillance who experienced a protocol-defined recurrence event, 81 (61%) crossed over to the atezolizumab/bevacizumab arm.

The overall survival benefit of the combination therapy was less clear. Dr. Chow called the overall survival data “highly immature” at the time of data cutoff.

Overall, 47 patients died – 7 more in the combination arm (27 vs. 20). More specifically, 17 patients in the combination arm and 16 on active surveillance died from progressive disease; 6 patients in the treatment arm versus 1 on surveillance died from adverse events. The remaining deaths were attributed to other causes. Two deaths in the combination arm were considered treatment related, one from esophageal varices hemorrhage, and the other from ischemic stroke.

Dr. Chow said a number of deaths attributed to HCC recurrence was similar between the groups. There were three COVID-19–related deaths within 1 year of randomization, all in the combination arm.

As for adverse events, the safety of the combination was largely consistent with that reported in the IMbrave150 trial. Nearly all patients experienced at least one adverse event. Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 34.9% of patients in the combination group, and serious treatment-related events occurred in 13.3%.

The most common adverse events of any grade were proteinuria, hypertension, decreased platelet count, increases in liver enzyme level, hypothyroidism, arthralgia, pruritus, rash, increase in serum bilirubin level, and fever.

Invited discussant Stephen L. Chan, MD, from the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said the study was “definitely” relevant to clinicians and addresses “a very important unmet need.”

Dr. Chan noted that he thinks this combination will “likely” be practice changing, given the improvement in recurrence-free survival, but “certainly we need more data to guide us in patient selection.”

The study was funded by F. Hoffman–La Roche. Dr. Chow has consulting for and has received honoraria and grant/research support from Roche and others. Dr. Chan has received honoraria from Roche and consulting fees and grant/research support from others.

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

ORLANDO – Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who undergo surgery or thermal ablation with curative intent are at high risk for recurrence, but currently, no adjuvant therapy standard of care exists for these patients.

New findings signal a promising option for these patients. The combination of the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq) and the angiogenesis inhibitor bevacizumab (Avastin) was associated with a significant improvement in recurrence-free survival, compared with active surveillance, and represents the first option to show efficacy in the adjuvant setting following surgical resection of HCCs for patients at high risk for recurrence.

The recurrence-free survival benefit corresponded to a 28% reduced risk of recurrence or death among patients who received the combination therapy in comparison with active surveillance. However, the overall survival data remain immature.

The data come from an interim analysis of the IMbrave050 trial, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab may be a practice-changing adjuvant treatment options for patients with high-risk HCC,” said lead investigator Pierce Chow, MBBS, PhD, codirector of the National Cancer Centre Singapore Comprehensive Liver Cancer Clinic. He presented the results in an oral abstract session at the meeting. The combination “may also change clinical indications for surgical resection” because clinicians may be more likely to consider resection for patients at extremely high risk for recurrence if the risk of recurrence can be reduced with this combination.

In the previous IMbrave150 trial, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab significantly improved outcomes for patients with high-risk and non–high-risk unresectable HCC, compared with the standard of care sorafenib (Nexavar).

In that trial, the median overall survival in the intention-to-treat population was 19.2 months for patients who received atezolizumab-bevacizumab versus 13.4 months for patients who received sorafenib (P = .0009).

The combination was also associated with improvements in progression-free survival and objective response rates, compared with sorafenib.

On the basis of these results, the IMbrave050 investigators explored whether the same benefits would occur for patients with resectable disease considered to be at high risk for recurrence owing to tumor size, vascular invasion, or poor tumor differentiation. The trial compared the combination for 334 patients with active surveillance, also for 334 patients, in the adjuvant setting.

Patients were considered good candidates for thermal ablation if they had a single tumor greater than 2 cm, but not larger than 5 cm in its longest dimension, or if they had four or fewer tumors, all of which were no larger than 5 cm. For all other patients, surgical resection was recommended.

The median age of the patients was 60. For about half of patients in each arm, the expression level of programmed death–ligand-1 (PD-L1) was 1% or higher.

After a median follow-up of 17.4 months, the 12-month recurrence-free survival rate, as assessed by independent review, was 78% for patients in the treatment arm, compared with 65% for patients who were assigned to active surveillance (hazard ratio, 0.72; P = .012). This finding was generally consistent across clinical subgroups, including groups based on age, sex, race/ethnicity, performance status, PD-L1 expression, number of high-risk features, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage, cancer etiology, procedure type, microvascular invasion, or tumor numbers and size.

Of 133 patients on active surveillance who experienced a protocol-defined recurrence event, 81 (61%) crossed over to the atezolizumab/bevacizumab arm.

The overall survival benefit of the combination therapy was less clear. Dr. Chow called the overall survival data “highly immature” at the time of data cutoff.

Overall, 47 patients died – 7 more in the combination arm (27 vs. 20). More specifically, 17 patients in the combination arm and 16 on active surveillance died from progressive disease; 6 patients in the treatment arm versus 1 on surveillance died from adverse events. The remaining deaths were attributed to other causes. Two deaths in the combination arm were considered treatment related, one from esophageal varices hemorrhage, and the other from ischemic stroke.

Dr. Chow said a number of deaths attributed to HCC recurrence was similar between the groups. There were three COVID-19–related deaths within 1 year of randomization, all in the combination arm.

As for adverse events, the safety of the combination was largely consistent with that reported in the IMbrave150 trial. Nearly all patients experienced at least one adverse event. Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 34.9% of patients in the combination group, and serious treatment-related events occurred in 13.3%.

The most common adverse events of any grade were proteinuria, hypertension, decreased platelet count, increases in liver enzyme level, hypothyroidism, arthralgia, pruritus, rash, increase in serum bilirubin level, and fever.

Invited discussant Stephen L. Chan, MD, from the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said the study was “definitely” relevant to clinicians and addresses “a very important unmet need.”

Dr. Chan noted that he thinks this combination will “likely” be practice changing, given the improvement in recurrence-free survival, but “certainly we need more data to guide us in patient selection.”

The study was funded by F. Hoffman–La Roche. Dr. Chow has consulting for and has received honoraria and grant/research support from Roche and others. Dr. Chan has received honoraria from Roche and consulting fees and grant/research support from others.

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

ORLANDO – Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who undergo surgery or thermal ablation with curative intent are at high risk for recurrence, but currently, no adjuvant therapy standard of care exists for these patients.

New findings signal a promising option for these patients. The combination of the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq) and the angiogenesis inhibitor bevacizumab (Avastin) was associated with a significant improvement in recurrence-free survival, compared with active surveillance, and represents the first option to show efficacy in the adjuvant setting following surgical resection of HCCs for patients at high risk for recurrence.

The recurrence-free survival benefit corresponded to a 28% reduced risk of recurrence or death among patients who received the combination therapy in comparison with active surveillance. However, the overall survival data remain immature.

The data come from an interim analysis of the IMbrave050 trial, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab may be a practice-changing adjuvant treatment options for patients with high-risk HCC,” said lead investigator Pierce Chow, MBBS, PhD, codirector of the National Cancer Centre Singapore Comprehensive Liver Cancer Clinic. He presented the results in an oral abstract session at the meeting. The combination “may also change clinical indications for surgical resection” because clinicians may be more likely to consider resection for patients at extremely high risk for recurrence if the risk of recurrence can be reduced with this combination.

In the previous IMbrave150 trial, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab significantly improved outcomes for patients with high-risk and non–high-risk unresectable HCC, compared with the standard of care sorafenib (Nexavar).

In that trial, the median overall survival in the intention-to-treat population was 19.2 months for patients who received atezolizumab-bevacizumab versus 13.4 months for patients who received sorafenib (P = .0009).

The combination was also associated with improvements in progression-free survival and objective response rates, compared with sorafenib.

On the basis of these results, the IMbrave050 investigators explored whether the same benefits would occur for patients with resectable disease considered to be at high risk for recurrence owing to tumor size, vascular invasion, or poor tumor differentiation. The trial compared the combination for 334 patients with active surveillance, also for 334 patients, in the adjuvant setting.

Patients were considered good candidates for thermal ablation if they had a single tumor greater than 2 cm, but not larger than 5 cm in its longest dimension, or if they had four or fewer tumors, all of which were no larger than 5 cm. For all other patients, surgical resection was recommended.

The median age of the patients was 60. For about half of patients in each arm, the expression level of programmed death–ligand-1 (PD-L1) was 1% or higher.

After a median follow-up of 17.4 months, the 12-month recurrence-free survival rate, as assessed by independent review, was 78% for patients in the treatment arm, compared with 65% for patients who were assigned to active surveillance (hazard ratio, 0.72; P = .012). This finding was generally consistent across clinical subgroups, including groups based on age, sex, race/ethnicity, performance status, PD-L1 expression, number of high-risk features, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage, cancer etiology, procedure type, microvascular invasion, or tumor numbers and size.

Of 133 patients on active surveillance who experienced a protocol-defined recurrence event, 81 (61%) crossed over to the atezolizumab/bevacizumab arm.

The overall survival benefit of the combination therapy was less clear. Dr. Chow called the overall survival data “highly immature” at the time of data cutoff.

Overall, 47 patients died – 7 more in the combination arm (27 vs. 20). More specifically, 17 patients in the combination arm and 16 on active surveillance died from progressive disease; 6 patients in the treatment arm versus 1 on surveillance died from adverse events. The remaining deaths were attributed to other causes. Two deaths in the combination arm were considered treatment related, one from esophageal varices hemorrhage, and the other from ischemic stroke.

Dr. Chow said a number of deaths attributed to HCC recurrence was similar between the groups. There were three COVID-19–related deaths within 1 year of randomization, all in the combination arm.

As for adverse events, the safety of the combination was largely consistent with that reported in the IMbrave150 trial. Nearly all patients experienced at least one adverse event. Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 34.9% of patients in the combination group, and serious treatment-related events occurred in 13.3%.

The most common adverse events of any grade were proteinuria, hypertension, decreased platelet count, increases in liver enzyme level, hypothyroidism, arthralgia, pruritus, rash, increase in serum bilirubin level, and fever.

Invited discussant Stephen L. Chan, MD, from the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said the study was “definitely” relevant to clinicians and addresses “a very important unmet need.”

Dr. Chan noted that he thinks this combination will “likely” be practice changing, given the improvement in recurrence-free survival, but “certainly we need more data to guide us in patient selection.”

The study was funded by F. Hoffman–La Roche. Dr. Chow has consulting for and has received honoraria and grant/research support from Roche and others. Dr. Chan has received honoraria from Roche and consulting fees and grant/research support from others.

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

PHOENIX – Combining a serum containing silymarin with nonablative laser therapy could serve as a promising solution for decreasing inflammation, postinflammatory erythema (PIE), and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) associated with acne lesions, results from a prospective, single-center study showed.

“Acne vulgaris is the most common inflammatory dermatosis worldwide, often resulting in sequelae such as scarring, PIE, and PIH,” presenting author Jamie Hu, MD, said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where the study results were presented during an abstract session. “This dyschromia can cause greater psychological distress than the original acne lesions, and disproportionately affects skin of color patients.”

Blemish-prone skin is known to have higher levels of sebum and lower levels of antioxidants, leading to lipid peroxidation and oxidative stress, resulting in proliferation of Cutibacterium acnes and an inflammatory cascade that has recently been implicated in postinflammatory dyschromia and the development of PIE and PIH, noted Dr. Hu, a dermatology resident at the University of Miami. “Therefore, the use of antioxidants presents an opportunity to disrupt blemish and dyschromia,” she said.

One such antioxidant is silymarin, which is derived from the milk thistle plant. Recent studies have demonstrated that silymarin reduces proinflammatory mediators, prevents lipid peroxidation, and presents a new way to target the treatment of both acne and postinflammatory dyschromia.

Dr. Hu’s mentor, Jill S. Waibel, MD, owner and medical director of the Miami Dermatology and Laser Institute, hypothesized that nonablative laser therapy followed by topical application of silymarin would improve acne-associated postinflammatory dyschromia. To test her hunch, she conducted a 12-week, prospective trial in which 24 patients with PIE and/or PIH were randomized to one of two treatment arms: laser treatment with topical antioxidants or laser treatment with vehicle control. Patients received three laser treatments, each 1 month apart. The topical antioxidant used was Silymarin CF, a serum that contains 0.5% silymarin, 0.5% salicylic acid, 15% L-ascorbic acid, and 0.5% ferulic acid. (The study was sponsored by SkinCeuticals, the manufacturer of the serum.)

Laser selection was made primarily on the type of dyschromia, with PIE patients receiving treatment with the pulsed dye laser and PIH patients receiving treatment with the 1,927-nm thulium laser. Patients were treated on days 0, 28, and 56 of the 12-week study, followed by immediate application of topical antioxidants or vehicle control. They were also instructed to apply the assigned topical twice daily for the duration of the study. Patients ranged in age from 21 to 61 years, and 20 had skin types III-IV.

To evaluate efficacy, the researchers conducted blinded clinical assessments with the postacne hyperpigmentation index (PAHPI) and the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), instrumentation with the Mexameter, a device that captures erythema and melanin index values, and visual diagnostics with optical coherence tomography (OCT).

Dr. Hu reported that at week 12, the PAHPI in the silymarin-plus-laser treatment group fell from an average of 3.18 to 1.74 (a decrease of 1.44), which suggested an improvement trend, compared with the laser treatment–only group, whose PAHPI fell from an average of 3.25 to 1.97 (a decrease of 1.28).

As for the GAIS, a one-time score assessed at the end of the trial, the average score for all patients was 3.24, which translated to “much improved/very much improved.” Patients in the silymarin-plus-laser treatment group had higher average scores compared with patients in the laser treatment–only group (3.35 vs. 3.10, respectively), but the differences did not reach statistical significance.

According to results of the Mexameter assessment, paired t-tests showed that the levels of intralesional melanin decreased significantly for patients in the silymarin-plus-laser treatment group, compared with the laser treatment–only group (P < .05). OCT assessments demonstrated an increase in dermal brightness in both groups, corresponding to an increase in dermal collagen, as well as an increase in blood vessel density.

In an interview at the meeting, Dr. Waibel, subsection chief of dermatology at Baptist Hospital of Miami, said that future studies will focus on long-term follow-up to determine if acne scars can be prevented by combining silymarin with lasers to prevent PIH and PIE. “That would be priceless,” she said. “I believe that the PIH is what causes damage to the collagen, and that damage to the collagen is what causes the scarring. So, if we can prevent or treat PIH, we may be able to prevent scarring.”

This approach, she added, “would decrease the pharmaceutical cost because I think there are many dermatologists who are treating PEI and PIH as active acne. You really have to have a keen eye for understanding the differences and you really have to be looking, because PIE and PIH are flat, whereas active acne consists of either comedones or nodules.”

She noted that in skin of color patients, she has seen PIH persist for 9 or 10 months after treatment with isotretinoin. “It’s not the isotretinoin causing the scars, or even the acne, it’s the prolonged inflammation,” she said.

Catherine M. DiGiorgio, MD, a Boston-based laser and cosmetic dermatologist who was asked to comment on the study, said that patients and dermatologists frequently seek alternatives to hydroquinone for unwanted hyperpigmentation.

Dr. DiGiorgio

Dr. Jalian

“While the study failed to show statistically significant improvement in postinflammatory erythema with concomitant laser and topical therapy versus laser alone, the promising data supporting concurrent use of topicals and fractional lasers for treatment of PIH, particularly in dark skin phototypes, is a clinically impactful contribution to our daily practice,” he said.

Dr. Waibel disclosed that she has conducted clinical trials for many device and pharmaceutical companies including SkinCeuticals. Dr. Hu, Dr. DiGiorgio, and Dr. Jalian were not involved with the study and reported having no relevant disclosures.

PHOENIX – Combining a serum containing silymarin with nonablative laser therapy could serve as a promising solution for decreasing inflammation, postinflammatory erythema (PIE), and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) associated with acne lesions, results from a prospective, single-center study showed.

“Acne vulgaris is the most common inflammatory dermatosis worldwide, often resulting in sequelae such as scarring, PIE, and PIH,” presenting author Jamie Hu, MD, said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where the study results were presented during an abstract session. “This dyschromia can cause greater psychological distress than the original acne lesions, and disproportionately affects skin of color patients.”

Blemish-prone skin is known to have higher levels of sebum and lower levels of antioxidants, leading to lipid peroxidation and oxidative stress, resulting in proliferation of Cutibacterium acnes and an inflammatory cascade that has recently been implicated in postinflammatory dyschromia and the development of PIE and PIH, noted Dr. Hu, a dermatology resident at the University of Miami. “Therefore, the use of antioxidants presents an opportunity to disrupt blemish and dyschromia,” she said.

One such antioxidant is silymarin, which is derived from the milk thistle plant. Recent studies have demonstrated that silymarin reduces proinflammatory mediators, prevents lipid peroxidation, and presents a new way to target the treatment of both acne and postinflammatory dyschromia.

Dr. Hu’s mentor, Jill S. Waibel, MD, owner and medical director of the Miami Dermatology and Laser Institute, hypothesized that nonablative laser therapy followed by topical application of silymarin would improve acne-associated postinflammatory dyschromia. To test her hunch, she conducted a 12-week, prospective trial in which 24 patients with PIE and/or PIH were randomized to one of two treatment arms: laser treatment with topical antioxidants or laser treatment with vehicle control. Patients received three laser treatments, each 1 month apart. The topical antioxidant used was Silymarin CF, a serum that contains 0.5% silymarin, 0.5% salicylic acid, 15% L-ascorbic acid, and 0.5% ferulic acid. (The study was sponsored by SkinCeuticals, the manufacturer of the serum.)

Laser selection was made primarily on the type of dyschromia, with PIE patients receiving treatment with the pulsed dye laser and PIH patients receiving treatment with the 1,927-nm thulium laser. Patients were treated on days 0, 28, and 56 of the 12-week study, followed by immediate application of topical antioxidants or vehicle control. They were also instructed to apply the assigned topical twice daily for the duration of the study. Patients ranged in age from 21 to 61 years, and 20 had skin types III-IV.

To evaluate efficacy, the researchers conducted blinded clinical assessments with the postacne hyperpigmentation index (PAHPI) and the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), instrumentation with the Mexameter, a device that captures erythema and melanin index values, and visual diagnostics with optical coherence tomography (OCT).

Dr. Hu reported that at week 12, the PAHPI in the silymarin-plus-laser treatment group fell from an average of 3.18 to 1.74 (a decrease of 1.44), which suggested an improvement trend, compared with the laser treatment–only group, whose PAHPI fell from an average of 3.25 to 1.97 (a decrease of 1.28).

As for the GAIS, a one-time score assessed at the end of the trial, the average score for all patients was 3.24, which translated to “much improved/very much improved.” Patients in the silymarin-plus-laser treatment group had higher average scores compared with patients in the laser treatment–only group (3.35 vs. 3.10, respectively), but the differences did not reach statistical significance.

According to results of the Mexameter assessment, paired t-tests showed that the levels of intralesional melanin decreased significantly for patients in the silymarin-plus-laser treatment group, compared with the laser treatment–only group (P < .05). OCT assessments demonstrated an increase in dermal brightness in both groups, corresponding to an increase in dermal collagen, as well as an increase in blood vessel density.

In an interview at the meeting, Dr. Waibel, subsection chief of dermatology at Baptist Hospital of Miami, said that future studies will focus on long-term follow-up to determine if acne scars can be prevented by combining silymarin with lasers to prevent PIH and PIE. “That would be priceless,” she said. “I believe that the PIH is what causes damage to the collagen, and that damage to the collagen is what causes the scarring. So, if we can prevent or treat PIH, we may be able to prevent scarring.”

This approach, she added, “would decrease the pharmaceutical cost because I think there are many dermatologists who are treating PEI and PIH as active acne. You really have to have a keen eye for understanding the differences and you really have to be looking, because PIE and PIH are flat, whereas active acne consists of either comedones or nodules.”

She noted that in skin of color patients, she has seen PIH persist for 9 or 10 months after treatment with isotretinoin. “It’s not the isotretinoin causing the scars, or even the acne, it’s the prolonged inflammation,” she said.

Catherine M. DiGiorgio, MD, a Boston-based laser and cosmetic dermatologist who was asked to comment on the study, said that patients and dermatologists frequently seek alternatives to hydroquinone for unwanted hyperpigmentation.

Dr. DiGiorgio

Dr. Jalian

“While the study failed to show statistically significant improvement in postinflammatory erythema with concomitant laser and topical therapy versus laser alone, the promising data supporting concurrent use of topicals and fractional lasers for treatment of PIH, particularly in dark skin phototypes, is a clinically impactful contribution to our daily practice,” he said.

Dr. Waibel disclosed that she has conducted clinical trials for many device and pharmaceutical companies including SkinCeuticals. Dr. Hu, Dr. DiGiorgio, and Dr. Jalian were not involved with the study and reported having no relevant disclosures.

PHOENIX – Combining a serum containing silymarin with nonablative laser therapy could serve as a promising solution for decreasing inflammation, postinflammatory erythema (PIE), and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) associated with acne lesions, results from a prospective, single-center study showed.

“Acne vulgaris is the most common inflammatory dermatosis worldwide, often resulting in sequelae such as scarring, PIE, and PIH,” presenting author Jamie Hu, MD, said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where the study results were presented during an abstract session. “This dyschromia can cause greater psychological distress than the original acne lesions, and disproportionately affects skin of color patients.”

Blemish-prone skin is known to have higher levels of sebum and lower levels of antioxidants, leading to lipid peroxidation and oxidative stress, resulting in proliferation of Cutibacterium acnes and an inflammatory cascade that has recently been implicated in postinflammatory dyschromia and the development of PIE and PIH, noted Dr. Hu, a dermatology resident at the University of Miami. “Therefore, the use of antioxidants presents an opportunity to disrupt blemish and dyschromia,” she said.

One such antioxidant is silymarin, which is derived from the milk thistle plant. Recent studies have demonstrated that silymarin reduces proinflammatory mediators, prevents lipid peroxidation, and presents a new way to target the treatment of both acne and postinflammatory dyschromia.

Dr. Hu’s mentor, Jill S. Waibel, MD, owner and medical director of the Miami Dermatology and Laser Institute, hypothesized that nonablative laser therapy followed by topical application of silymarin would improve acne-associated postinflammatory dyschromia. To test her hunch, she conducted a 12-week, prospective trial in which 24 patients with PIE and/or PIH were randomized to one of two treatment arms: laser treatment with topical antioxidants or laser treatment with vehicle control. Patients received three laser treatments, each 1 month apart. The topical antioxidant used was Silymarin CF, a serum that contains 0.5% silymarin, 0.5% salicylic acid, 15% L-ascorbic acid, and 0.5% ferulic acid. (The study was sponsored by SkinCeuticals, the manufacturer of the serum.)

Laser selection was made primarily on the type of dyschromia, with PIE patients receiving treatment with the pulsed dye laser and PIH patients receiving treatment with the 1,927-nm thulium laser. Patients were treated on days 0, 28, and 56 of the 12-week study, followed by immediate application of topical antioxidants or vehicle control. They were also instructed to apply the assigned topical twice daily for the duration of the study. Patients ranged in age from 21 to 61 years, and 20 had skin types III-IV.

To evaluate efficacy, the researchers conducted blinded clinical assessments with the postacne hyperpigmentation index (PAHPI) and the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), instrumentation with the Mexameter, a device that captures erythema and melanin index values, and visual diagnostics with optical coherence tomography (OCT).

Dr. Hu reported that at week 12, the PAHPI in the silymarin-plus-laser treatment group fell from an average of 3.18 to 1.74 (a decrease of 1.44), which suggested an improvement trend, compared with the laser treatment–only group, whose PAHPI fell from an average of 3.25 to 1.97 (a decrease of 1.28).

As for the GAIS, a one-time score assessed at the end of the trial, the average score for all patients was 3.24, which translated to “much improved/very much improved.” Patients in the silymarin-plus-laser treatment group had higher average scores compared with patients in the laser treatment–only group (3.35 vs. 3.10, respectively), but the differences did not reach statistical significance.

According to results of the Mexameter assessment, paired t-tests showed that the levels of intralesional melanin decreased significantly for patients in the silymarin-plus-laser treatment group, compared with the laser treatment–only group (P < .05). OCT assessments demonstrated an increase in dermal brightness in both groups, corresponding to an increase in dermal collagen, as well as an increase in blood vessel density.

In an interview at the meeting, Dr. Waibel, subsection chief of dermatology at Baptist Hospital of Miami, said that future studies will focus on long-term follow-up to determine if acne scars can be prevented by combining silymarin with lasers to prevent PIH and PIE. “That would be priceless,” she said. “I believe that the PIH is what causes damage to the collagen, and that damage to the collagen is what causes the scarring. So, if we can prevent or treat PIH, we may be able to prevent scarring.”

This approach, she added, “would decrease the pharmaceutical cost because I think there are many dermatologists who are treating PEI and PIH as active acne. You really have to have a keen eye for understanding the differences and you really have to be looking, because PIE and PIH are flat, whereas active acne consists of either comedones or nodules.”

She noted that in skin of color patients, she has seen PIH persist for 9 or 10 months after treatment with isotretinoin. “It’s not the isotretinoin causing the scars, or even the acne, it’s the prolonged inflammation,” she said.

Catherine M. DiGiorgio, MD, a Boston-based laser and cosmetic dermatologist who was asked to comment on the study, said that patients and dermatologists frequently seek alternatives to hydroquinone for unwanted hyperpigmentation.

Dr. DiGiorgio

Dr. Jalian

“While the study failed to show statistically significant improvement in postinflammatory erythema with concomitant laser and topical therapy versus laser alone, the promising data supporting concurrent use of topicals and fractional lasers for treatment of PIH, particularly in dark skin phototypes, is a clinically impactful contribution to our daily practice,” he said.

Dr. Waibel disclosed that she has conducted clinical trials for many device and pharmaceutical companies including SkinCeuticals. Dr. Hu, Dr. DiGiorgio, and Dr. Jalian were not involved with the study and reported having no relevant disclosures.

Having chronic liver disease does not affect outcomes for women who undergo in vitro fertilization (IVF), new research suggests.

The study, published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology, compared women with and those without chronic liver disease who had normal ovarian reserve and who underwent assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment in a high-volume fertility practice from 2002 to 2021.

“IVF treatment and pregnancy outcomes were not significantly different compared to controls,” the researchers wrote.

Women with liver disease may experience impaired fertility. For example, women with chronic liver disease, such as hepatitis C virus infection, may have premature ovarian insufficiency, while women with advanced liver disease, cirrhosis, and hepatic decompensation are known to have abnormally low gonadotropin levels.

The prevalence of liver disease in women of reproductive age is rising, leading to “an immediate need for the clinical assessment of reproductive potential in women with chronic liver disease,” the authors wrote.

The literature about ART treatment outcomes for women with liver disease was limited and may not reflect current therapy protocols, researchers found.

“To the best of our knowledge, this study is the largest to date to evaluate IVF efficacy in women with liver disease,” they wrote.
 

Similar outcomes

Researchers identified 295 women with liver disease (mean age, 37.8 ± 5.2 years) who underwent 1,033 contemporary, standard ART treatment cycles. Six patients (2%) had cirrhosis, eight (2.7%) had undergone liver transplantation, and 281 (95.3%) had chronic liver disease, of which viral hepatitis B and C infections were the most prevalent. The final study population consisted of 115 women who underwent 186 IVF cycles, as well as embryo biopsy for genetic testing.

The control group consisted of all the women at the treatment center without liver disease who received contemporary, standard ART treatment because of male factor infertility, which served as an indication that the women had normal ovarian reserve and were considered fertile. These 624 patients underwent 868 IVF cycles with embryo biopsy.

The mean age of the patients with liver disease was significantly higher than that of the control participants. Mean body mass index was also significantly higher for the patients with liver disease, and there were differences in baseline levels of selected hormones, compared with control participants. In addition, among those with liver disease, the number of oocytes retrieved was significantly lower (12.3 ± 7.6 vs. 16.5 ± 8.2; P < .05), as were the number of mature oocytes (9.1 ± 6.2 vs. 12.6 ± 6.7; P < .05), the number of fertilized embryos (7.0 ± 5.2 vs. 9.9 ± 5.9; P < .05), the number of embryos for which biopsy was performed (3.4 ± 2.2 vs. 5.1 ± 3.5; P < .05), and the number of euploid embryos (1.6 ± 1.4 vs. 2.7 ± 2.4; P < .05), compared with control participants.

Among the two groups, there were no statistically significant differences in mature oocyte rate (an indicator of response to controlled ovarian stimulation), fertilization per mature oocyte rate (an indicator of oocyte quality and ability to be fertilized), or embryo ploidy rate (an indicator of genetically normal embryos), as determined by embryo biopsy, the researchers write.

A subanalysis of women who went on to have a single thawed euploid (chromosomally normal) embryo transfer to achieve pregnancy found no statistically significant differences in rates of clinical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy loss, or live births between the liver disease group and the control group.

“Overall, women with chronic liver disease can be counseled that IVF treatment will not significantly differ in response to controlled ovarian stimulation, embryo fertilization rate, or ploidy outcome compared to women without liver disease,” the researchers wrote.
 

Data for patient counseling

The results could change the current common thinking among clinicians that IVF should not be conducted until liver disease is under optimal control, first author Jessica Lee, BS, a student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said.

“There was a knowledge gap for studies in the United States, and we hope this study will not only help patients with liver disease but also providers with counseling,” she said.

The findings suggest that “even if you have chronic liver disease and it’s not fully optimized, that should not interfere with pursuing IVF,” said principal investigator Tatyana Kushner, MD, an associate professor of medicine in liver diseases at the Icahn School.

Women with liver disease whose fertility is impaired should receive counseling about fertility preservation options earlier to help access fertility care, the researchers write.

The study’s findings are “encouraging,” said Monika Sarkar, MD, associate professor of medicine in gastroenterology at the University of California, San Francisco.

“With rising numbers of young adults with liver disease, it is encouraging to see dedicated studies that address a topic of importance to our patients – namely, their reproductive health,” she said. “The current study nicely expands beyond previous data to include a control population without liver disease.”
 

Differences in oocyte numbers

Although there were no differences in the success rate of embryo transfer, the researchers did see differences in the number of oocytes. Only 37 mature oocytes made it to transfer in the liver disease group, compared with 609 in the control group, noted Dr. Sarkar, who was not involved with the study.

“The challenge of ART is less at the level of embryo transfer, which is very successful once a euploid embryo is achieved, but rather at the earlier step of retrieval of mature oocytes,” Dr. Sarkar said. “Here, the authors found that patients with liver disease had a significantly lower number of oocytes retrieved, number of mature oocytes, and lower number of fertilized embryos.”

The data suggest that fewer eggs are retrieved per cycle from patients with liver disease, “which ultimately will lower the success per cycle,” Dr. Sarkar said.

“This suggests that referring women with chronic liver disease to ART sooner may help to optimize outcomes,” she added. “Larger data evaluating ability to achieve mature oocytes and subsequent fertilization will also be key for determining whether ART success differs by presence, severity, and type of liver disease.”

As more research on ART outcomes in women with liver disease is conducted, subspecialists in gastrointestinal and liver disease may gain confidence in counseling patients, Dr. Sarkar said.

Ms. Lee, Dr. Kushner, and Dr. Sarkar report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Having chronic liver disease does not affect outcomes for women who undergo in vitro fertilization (IVF), new research suggests.

The study, published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology, compared women with and those without chronic liver disease who had normal ovarian reserve and who underwent assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment in a high-volume fertility practice from 2002 to 2021.

“IVF treatment and pregnancy outcomes were not significantly different compared to controls,” the researchers wrote.

Women with liver disease may experience impaired fertility. For example, women with chronic liver disease, such as hepatitis C virus infection, may have premature ovarian insufficiency, while women with advanced liver disease, cirrhosis, and hepatic decompensation are known to have abnormally low gonadotropin levels.

The prevalence of liver disease in women of reproductive age is rising, leading to “an immediate need for the clinical assessment of reproductive potential in women with chronic liver disease,” the authors wrote.

The literature about ART treatment outcomes for women with liver disease was limited and may not reflect current therapy protocols, researchers found.

“To the best of our knowledge, this study is the largest to date to evaluate IVF efficacy in women with liver disease,” they wrote.
 

Similar outcomes

Researchers identified 295 women with liver disease (mean age, 37.8 ± 5.2 years) who underwent 1,033 contemporary, standard ART treatment cycles. Six patients (2%) had cirrhosis, eight (2.7%) had undergone liver transplantation, and 281 (95.3%) had chronic liver disease, of which viral hepatitis B and C infections were the most prevalent. The final study population consisted of 115 women who underwent 186 IVF cycles, as well as embryo biopsy for genetic testing.

The control group consisted of all the women at the treatment center without liver disease who received contemporary, standard ART treatment because of male factor infertility, which served as an indication that the women had normal ovarian reserve and were considered fertile. These 624 patients underwent 868 IVF cycles with embryo biopsy.

The mean age of the patients with liver disease was significantly higher than that of the control participants. Mean body mass index was also significantly higher for the patients with liver disease, and there were differences in baseline levels of selected hormones, compared with control participants. In addition, among those with liver disease, the number of oocytes retrieved was significantly lower (12.3 ± 7.6 vs. 16.5 ± 8.2; P < .05), as were the number of mature oocytes (9.1 ± 6.2 vs. 12.6 ± 6.7; P < .05), the number of fertilized embryos (7.0 ± 5.2 vs. 9.9 ± 5.9; P < .05), the number of embryos for which biopsy was performed (3.4 ± 2.2 vs. 5.1 ± 3.5; P < .05), and the number of euploid embryos (1.6 ± 1.4 vs. 2.7 ± 2.4; P < .05), compared with control participants.

Among the two groups, there were no statistically significant differences in mature oocyte rate (an indicator of response to controlled ovarian stimulation), fertilization per mature oocyte rate (an indicator of oocyte quality and ability to be fertilized), or embryo ploidy rate (an indicator of genetically normal embryos), as determined by embryo biopsy, the researchers write.

A subanalysis of women who went on to have a single thawed euploid (chromosomally normal) embryo transfer to achieve pregnancy found no statistically significant differences in rates of clinical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy loss, or live births between the liver disease group and the control group.

“Overall, women with chronic liver disease can be counseled that IVF treatment will not significantly differ in response to controlled ovarian stimulation, embryo fertilization rate, or ploidy outcome compared to women without liver disease,” the researchers wrote.
 

Data for patient counseling

The results could change the current common thinking among clinicians that IVF should not be conducted until liver disease is under optimal control, first author Jessica Lee, BS, a student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said.

“There was a knowledge gap for studies in the United States, and we hope this study will not only help patients with liver disease but also providers with counseling,” she said.

The findings suggest that “even if you have chronic liver disease and it’s not fully optimized, that should not interfere with pursuing IVF,” said principal investigator Tatyana Kushner, MD, an associate professor of medicine in liver diseases at the Icahn School.

Women with liver disease whose fertility is impaired should receive counseling about fertility preservation options earlier to help access fertility care, the researchers write.

The study’s findings are “encouraging,” said Monika Sarkar, MD, associate professor of medicine in gastroenterology at the University of California, San Francisco.

“With rising numbers of young adults with liver disease, it is encouraging to see dedicated studies that address a topic of importance to our patients – namely, their reproductive health,” she said. “The current study nicely expands beyond previous data to include a control population without liver disease.”
 

Differences in oocyte numbers

Although there were no differences in the success rate of embryo transfer, the researchers did see differences in the number of oocytes. Only 37 mature oocytes made it to transfer in the liver disease group, compared with 609 in the control group, noted Dr. Sarkar, who was not involved with the study.

“The challenge of ART is less at the level of embryo transfer, which is very successful once a euploid embryo is achieved, but rather at the earlier step of retrieval of mature oocytes,” Dr. Sarkar said. “Here, the authors found that patients with liver disease had a significantly lower number of oocytes retrieved, number of mature oocytes, and lower number of fertilized embryos.”

The data suggest that fewer eggs are retrieved per cycle from patients with liver disease, “which ultimately will lower the success per cycle,” Dr. Sarkar said.

“This suggests that referring women with chronic liver disease to ART sooner may help to optimize outcomes,” she added. “Larger data evaluating ability to achieve mature oocytes and subsequent fertilization will also be key for determining whether ART success differs by presence, severity, and type of liver disease.”

As more research on ART outcomes in women with liver disease is conducted, subspecialists in gastrointestinal and liver disease may gain confidence in counseling patients, Dr. Sarkar said.

Ms. Lee, Dr. Kushner, and Dr. Sarkar report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Having chronic liver disease does not affect outcomes for women who undergo in vitro fertilization (IVF), new research suggests.

The study, published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology, compared women with and those without chronic liver disease who had normal ovarian reserve and who underwent assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment in a high-volume fertility practice from 2002 to 2021.

“IVF treatment and pregnancy outcomes were not significantly different compared to controls,” the researchers wrote.

Women with liver disease may experience impaired fertility. For example, women with chronic liver disease, such as hepatitis C virus infection, may have premature ovarian insufficiency, while women with advanced liver disease, cirrhosis, and hepatic decompensation are known to have abnormally low gonadotropin levels.

The prevalence of liver disease in women of reproductive age is rising, leading to “an immediate need for the clinical assessment of reproductive potential in women with chronic liver disease,” the authors wrote.

The literature about ART treatment outcomes for women with liver disease was limited and may not reflect current therapy protocols, researchers found.

“To the best of our knowledge, this study is the largest to date to evaluate IVF efficacy in women with liver disease,” they wrote.
 

Similar outcomes

Researchers identified 295 women with liver disease (mean age, 37.8 ± 5.2 years) who underwent 1,033 contemporary, standard ART treatment cycles. Six patients (2%) had cirrhosis, eight (2.7%) had undergone liver transplantation, and 281 (95.3%) had chronic liver disease, of which viral hepatitis B and C infections were the most prevalent. The final study population consisted of 115 women who underwent 186 IVF cycles, as well as embryo biopsy for genetic testing.

The control group consisted of all the women at the treatment center without liver disease who received contemporary, standard ART treatment because of male factor infertility, which served as an indication that the women had normal ovarian reserve and were considered fertile. These 624 patients underwent 868 IVF cycles with embryo biopsy.

The mean age of the patients with liver disease was significantly higher than that of the control participants. Mean body mass index was also significantly higher for the patients with liver disease, and there were differences in baseline levels of selected hormones, compared with control participants. In addition, among those with liver disease, the number of oocytes retrieved was significantly lower (12.3 ± 7.6 vs. 16.5 ± 8.2; P < .05), as were the number of mature oocytes (9.1 ± 6.2 vs. 12.6 ± 6.7; P < .05), the number of fertilized embryos (7.0 ± 5.2 vs. 9.9 ± 5.9; P < .05), the number of embryos for which biopsy was performed (3.4 ± 2.2 vs. 5.1 ± 3.5; P < .05), and the number of euploid embryos (1.6 ± 1.4 vs. 2.7 ± 2.4; P < .05), compared with control participants.

Among the two groups, there were no statistically significant differences in mature oocyte rate (an indicator of response to controlled ovarian stimulation), fertilization per mature oocyte rate (an indicator of oocyte quality and ability to be fertilized), or embryo ploidy rate (an indicator of genetically normal embryos), as determined by embryo biopsy, the researchers write.

A subanalysis of women who went on to have a single thawed euploid (chromosomally normal) embryo transfer to achieve pregnancy found no statistically significant differences in rates of clinical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy loss, or live births between the liver disease group and the control group.

“Overall, women with chronic liver disease can be counseled that IVF treatment will not significantly differ in response to controlled ovarian stimulation, embryo fertilization rate, or ploidy outcome compared to women without liver disease,” the researchers wrote.
 

Data for patient counseling

The results could change the current common thinking among clinicians that IVF should not be conducted until liver disease is under optimal control, first author Jessica Lee, BS, a student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said.

“There was a knowledge gap for studies in the United States, and we hope this study will not only help patients with liver disease but also providers with counseling,” she said.

The findings suggest that “even if you have chronic liver disease and it’s not fully optimized, that should not interfere with pursuing IVF,” said principal investigator Tatyana Kushner, MD, an associate professor of medicine in liver diseases at the Icahn School.

Women with liver disease whose fertility is impaired should receive counseling about fertility preservation options earlier to help access fertility care, the researchers write.

The study’s findings are “encouraging,” said Monika Sarkar, MD, associate professor of medicine in gastroenterology at the University of California, San Francisco.

“With rising numbers of young adults with liver disease, it is encouraging to see dedicated studies that address a topic of importance to our patients – namely, their reproductive health,” she said. “The current study nicely expands beyond previous data to include a control population without liver disease.”
 

Differences in oocyte numbers

Although there were no differences in the success rate of embryo transfer, the researchers did see differences in the number of oocytes. Only 37 mature oocytes made it to transfer in the liver disease group, compared with 609 in the control group, noted Dr. Sarkar, who was not involved with the study.

“The challenge of ART is less at the level of embryo transfer, which is very successful once a euploid embryo is achieved, but rather at the earlier step of retrieval of mature oocytes,” Dr. Sarkar said. “Here, the authors found that patients with liver disease had a significantly lower number of oocytes retrieved, number of mature oocytes, and lower number of fertilized embryos.”

The data suggest that fewer eggs are retrieved per cycle from patients with liver disease, “which ultimately will lower the success per cycle,” Dr. Sarkar said.

“This suggests that referring women with chronic liver disease to ART sooner may help to optimize outcomes,” she added. “Larger data evaluating ability to achieve mature oocytes and subsequent fertilization will also be key for determining whether ART success differs by presence, severity, and type of liver disease.”

As more research on ART outcomes in women with liver disease is conducted, subspecialists in gastrointestinal and liver disease may gain confidence in counseling patients, Dr. Sarkar said.

Ms. Lee, Dr. Kushner, and Dr. Sarkar report no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – Noninvasive tests performed in midlife may help identify people who are at risk of late-onset epilepsy, a new study suggests. New data from the Framingham Heart Study show those who scored better on a neurocognitive test that measures executive function were 75% less likely to develop late-onset epilepsy.

An analysis of MRI revealed that those with higher cortical volumes also had a lower risk of epilepsy later in life, while those with higher white matter hyperintensities had an increased risk.

The study could help identify at-risk individuals years before symptoms of epilepsy appear.

“We present possible markers that could potentially identify patients at risk for developing late-onset epilepsy, even in the preclinical phase and before the clinical manifestation of conditions like stroke and dementia that are known now to be linked with the condition,” said lead investigator Maria Stefanidou, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Boston University.

The findings were presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Protection against late-onset epilepsy?

Hypertension and stroke are known risk factors for late-onset epilepsy. Dementia is also a known risk factor. But in about 30% of cases, the cause of epilepsy in older individuals is unknown.

For this study, investigators analyzed data from the offspring cohort of the Framingham Heart Study. Participants were at least 45 years old; underwent neuropsychological evaluation and brain MRI; and had no prior history of stroke, dementia, or epilepsy. Cognitive measures included Visual Reproductions Delayed Recall, Logical Memory Delayed Recall, Similarities, Trail Making B-A (TrB-TrA), and the Hooper Visual Organization Test.

Participants also underwent an MRI to measure total cerebral brain volume, cortical gray matter volume, white matter hyperintensities, and hippocampal volume.

After a mean follow-up of 13.5 years, late-onset epilepsy was diagnosed in 31 of participants who underwent neuropsychological testing (n = 2,349) and in 27 of those who underwent MRI (n = 2,056).

Better performance on the TrB-TrA test (a measure of executive function, processing speed, and occult vascular injury) was associated with a reduced risk of late-onset epilepsy (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.25; P = .011).

The findings held even after adjusting for age, sex, educational level, and known risk factors for late-onset epilepsy, such as hypertension (aHR, 0.30; P = .0401).

Higher white matter hyperintensities, a measure of occult vascular injury, was associated with increased epilepsy risk (aHR, 1.5; P = .042) when adjusted only for age, sex, and education, but was no longer significant after adjusting for hypertension and other risk factors (aHR, 1.47; P = .065).

The analysis also revealed that participants with a higher cortical gray matter volume had a lower risk for late-onset epilepsy (aHR, 0.73; P = .001).

“There is increasing literature supporting that late-onset epilepsy may be secondary to accumulative occult cerebrovascular and neurodegenerative processes that occur during aging,” Dr. Stefanidou said. “Our findings likely reflect that a lesser degree of occult vascular brain injury in midlife may be protective against late-onset epilepsy.”

However, the epidemiological study points to association, not causation, Dr. Stefanidou cautions.

“Further studies will be needed to study our observations in the clinical setting,” she said.
 

‘Intriguing’ findings

Commenting on the findings, Joseph Sirven, MD, a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said the findings are “intriguing,” but also raise some questions. “Late-onset epilepsy remains an issue for many and it’s common,” said Dr. Sirven, who has patients with late-onset epilepsy.

Dr. Sirven was particularly interested in the findings on white matter hyperintensities. “Hippocampal volumes have been used but not so much cortical volumes,” he said. “I would like to know more about how white matter changes suggest pathology that would explain epilepsy.”

Study funding was not disclosed. Dr. Stefanidou and Dr. Sirven report no relevant financial relationships.

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