Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

The chance that patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) will receive aortic valve replacement (AVR) is worse than the flip of a coin, even a decade after the gamechanging transcatheter option became available, a new study suggests.

Of the study’s 6,150 patients with an indication or potential indication for AVR, 48% received the procedure at Massachusetts General Hospital and its partner institution Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston – both of which have active, high-volume transcatheter and surgical AVR (TAVR/SAVR) programs.

“Essentially, this is a best-case scenario. So, unfortunately, I think on the national level we are likely to see rates that are far worse than what we observed here,” senior author Sammy Elmariah, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, told this news organization.

The volume of AVR increased more than 10-fold over the 18-year study period (2000 to 2017), driven by the exponential growth of TAVR, he noted. However, the graying of America led to an even greater increase in the number of patients with severe AS and an indication for AVR.

The study, led by Shawn X. Li, MD, MBA, of Mass General, was published in the March 8 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Previous research has provided equally compelling data on the undertreatment of AS, including a 2021 study using natural language processing (NLP) that found AVR use was just 35.6% within 1 year of diagnosis and varied wildly among managing cardiologists.

The present study used NLP tools to identify symptoms consistent with severe AS in the medical record coupled with echocardiographic data from 10,795 patients with severe AS (valve area <1 cm2). Patients were divided into four AS subtypes and then classified as having a class 1 indication (high-gradient AS with symptoms or reduced ejection fraction [EF]) or a potential class 2a indication (low-gradient AS with symptoms) for AVR.

Among patients with high-gradient AS and class 1 indication for AVR, 1 in 3 did not receive AVR over the study period, including 30% with a normal EF and 47% with a low EF.

In those with low-gradient AS, 67% with a normal EF and 62% with a low EF did not receive AVR. The low-gradient groups were significantly less likely to receive AVR both in the entire study period and in the more contemporary period from 2014 to 2017, despite the valvular heart disease guideline 2014 update indicating AVR was “reasonable” in patients with low-gradient AS – a 2a recommendation upgraded to class 1 in the most recent 2020 update.
 

Better survival

In patients with a class 1 or potential class 2a indication, AVR was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality in all four AS subgroups:

• High gradient/normal EF: 3% vs. 15%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.42
• High-gradient/low EF: 16% vs. 72%; aHR, 0.28
• Low-gradient/normal EF: 5% vs. 14%; aHR, 0.73
• Low-gradient/low EF: 11% vs. 34%; aHR, 0.48; P < .001 for all

“I think what we need to do is change the paradigm, such that patients with a valve area that is less than or equal to 1 [cm2] is severe aortic stenosis until proven otherwise, and that essentially establishes a premise by which we default to treat these patients unless we can prove that it is in fact moderate,” Dr. Elmariah said.

Unfortunately, the opposite is currently true today, he said, and the default is not to treat and put patients through surgery or an invasive TAVR procedure unless physicians can definitively prove that it is severe AS. But they’re not always correct and don’t always have the ability to truly differentiate moderate from severe disease.

“The question, therefore, is ‘What do we do with those patients?’” Dr. Elmariah asked. “I think if a patient has symptoms, then we are obligated to intervene, given the stark difference in mortality that one sees when these patients go undertreated.”
 

Sounding the alarm

Robert Bonow, MD, a professor of cardiology at Northwestern University in Chicago and a writing committee member for the 2014 guideline update, said the study is a “big wake-up call” and “the take-home message is that we are missing some patients who have treatable aortic stenosis.”

The sheer magnitude of the problem, however, can be difficult to fully ascertain from administrative data like this, he said. Notably, patients who did not receive AVR were significantly older, with 37% aged 81-90 years and 12% over age 90, and had a lower hematocrit and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate. But it’s not clear how many had cancer, end-stage renal disease, or severe lung disease, which could have factored into the decision to undergo AVR.

“What’s also an issue is that over 50% of patients had low gradient disease, which is very problematic and takes careful assessment in an individual patient,” said Dr. Bonow, who is also editor-in-chief of JAMA Cardiology. “That’s all being generated by a low valve area of less than 1 cm2 from echo reports, so that’s not necessarily a careful prospective echo assessment ... so some of the patients with low-gradient disease may not have true severe aortic stenosis.”

Dr. Elmariah agreed that echocardiogram reports are not always clear cut and pointed out that referral to a valve specialist was highly predictive of whether or not a patient underwent AVR, supporting the class 1 guideline recommendation.

He also noted that Mass General is launching the DETECT-AS trial to determine whether electronic physician notifications highlighting clinical practice guideline recommendations will improve AVR utilization over standard care in 940 patients with severe AS on echocardiogram, defined by a valve area less than 1 cm2.

Reached for comment, Catherine Otto, MD, director of the Heart Valve Clinic at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a fellow member of the 2014 guideline writing committee, said “this adds to the data [that] we’re undertreating severe aortic stenosis, and it continues to be surprising given the availability of transcatheter options.”

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

The chance that patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) will receive aortic valve replacement (AVR) is worse than the flip of a coin, even a decade after the gamechanging transcatheter option became available, a new study suggests.

Of the study’s 6,150 patients with an indication or potential indication for AVR, 48% received the procedure at Massachusetts General Hospital and its partner institution Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston – both of which have active, high-volume transcatheter and surgical AVR (TAVR/SAVR) programs.

“Essentially, this is a best-case scenario. So, unfortunately, I think on the national level we are likely to see rates that are far worse than what we observed here,” senior author Sammy Elmariah, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, told this news organization.

The volume of AVR increased more than 10-fold over the 18-year study period (2000 to 2017), driven by the exponential growth of TAVR, he noted. However, the graying of America led to an even greater increase in the number of patients with severe AS and an indication for AVR.

The study, led by Shawn X. Li, MD, MBA, of Mass General, was published in the March 8 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Previous research has provided equally compelling data on the undertreatment of AS, including a 2021 study using natural language processing (NLP) that found AVR use was just 35.6% within 1 year of diagnosis and varied wildly among managing cardiologists.

The present study used NLP tools to identify symptoms consistent with severe AS in the medical record coupled with echocardiographic data from 10,795 patients with severe AS (valve area <1 cm2). Patients were divided into four AS subtypes and then classified as having a class 1 indication (high-gradient AS with symptoms or reduced ejection fraction [EF]) or a potential class 2a indication (low-gradient AS with symptoms) for AVR.

Among patients with high-gradient AS and class 1 indication for AVR, 1 in 3 did not receive AVR over the study period, including 30% with a normal EF and 47% with a low EF.

In those with low-gradient AS, 67% with a normal EF and 62% with a low EF did not receive AVR. The low-gradient groups were significantly less likely to receive AVR both in the entire study period and in the more contemporary period from 2014 to 2017, despite the valvular heart disease guideline 2014 update indicating AVR was “reasonable” in patients with low-gradient AS – a 2a recommendation upgraded to class 1 in the most recent 2020 update.
 

Better survival

In patients with a class 1 or potential class 2a indication, AVR was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality in all four AS subgroups:

• High gradient/normal EF: 3% vs. 15%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.42
• High-gradient/low EF: 16% vs. 72%; aHR, 0.28
• Low-gradient/normal EF: 5% vs. 14%; aHR, 0.73
• Low-gradient/low EF: 11% vs. 34%; aHR, 0.48; P < .001 for all

“I think what we need to do is change the paradigm, such that patients with a valve area that is less than or equal to 1 [cm2] is severe aortic stenosis until proven otherwise, and that essentially establishes a premise by which we default to treat these patients unless we can prove that it is in fact moderate,” Dr. Elmariah said.

Unfortunately, the opposite is currently true today, he said, and the default is not to treat and put patients through surgery or an invasive TAVR procedure unless physicians can definitively prove that it is severe AS. But they’re not always correct and don’t always have the ability to truly differentiate moderate from severe disease.

“The question, therefore, is ‘What do we do with those patients?’” Dr. Elmariah asked. “I think if a patient has symptoms, then we are obligated to intervene, given the stark difference in mortality that one sees when these patients go undertreated.”
 

Sounding the alarm

Robert Bonow, MD, a professor of cardiology at Northwestern University in Chicago and a writing committee member for the 2014 guideline update, said the study is a “big wake-up call” and “the take-home message is that we are missing some patients who have treatable aortic stenosis.”

The sheer magnitude of the problem, however, can be difficult to fully ascertain from administrative data like this, he said. Notably, patients who did not receive AVR were significantly older, with 37% aged 81-90 years and 12% over age 90, and had a lower hematocrit and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate. But it’s not clear how many had cancer, end-stage renal disease, or severe lung disease, which could have factored into the decision to undergo AVR.

“What’s also an issue is that over 50% of patients had low gradient disease, which is very problematic and takes careful assessment in an individual patient,” said Dr. Bonow, who is also editor-in-chief of JAMA Cardiology. “That’s all being generated by a low valve area of less than 1 cm2 from echo reports, so that’s not necessarily a careful prospective echo assessment ... so some of the patients with low-gradient disease may not have true severe aortic stenosis.”

Dr. Elmariah agreed that echocardiogram reports are not always clear cut and pointed out that referral to a valve specialist was highly predictive of whether or not a patient underwent AVR, supporting the class 1 guideline recommendation.

He also noted that Mass General is launching the DETECT-AS trial to determine whether electronic physician notifications highlighting clinical practice guideline recommendations will improve AVR utilization over standard care in 940 patients with severe AS on echocardiogram, defined by a valve area less than 1 cm2.

Reached for comment, Catherine Otto, MD, director of the Heart Valve Clinic at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a fellow member of the 2014 guideline writing committee, said “this adds to the data [that] we’re undertreating severe aortic stenosis, and it continues to be surprising given the availability of transcatheter options.”

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

The chance that patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) will receive aortic valve replacement (AVR) is worse than the flip of a coin, even a decade after the gamechanging transcatheter option became available, a new study suggests.

Of the study’s 6,150 patients with an indication or potential indication for AVR, 48% received the procedure at Massachusetts General Hospital and its partner institution Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston – both of which have active, high-volume transcatheter and surgical AVR (TAVR/SAVR) programs.

“Essentially, this is a best-case scenario. So, unfortunately, I think on the national level we are likely to see rates that are far worse than what we observed here,” senior author Sammy Elmariah, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, told this news organization.

The volume of AVR increased more than 10-fold over the 18-year study period (2000 to 2017), driven by the exponential growth of TAVR, he noted. However, the graying of America led to an even greater increase in the number of patients with severe AS and an indication for AVR.

The study, led by Shawn X. Li, MD, MBA, of Mass General, was published in the March 8 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Previous research has provided equally compelling data on the undertreatment of AS, including a 2021 study using natural language processing (NLP) that found AVR use was just 35.6% within 1 year of diagnosis and varied wildly among managing cardiologists.

The present study used NLP tools to identify symptoms consistent with severe AS in the medical record coupled with echocardiographic data from 10,795 patients with severe AS (valve area <1 cm2). Patients were divided into four AS subtypes and then classified as having a class 1 indication (high-gradient AS with symptoms or reduced ejection fraction [EF]) or a potential class 2a indication (low-gradient AS with symptoms) for AVR.

Among patients with high-gradient AS and class 1 indication for AVR, 1 in 3 did not receive AVR over the study period, including 30% with a normal EF and 47% with a low EF.

In those with low-gradient AS, 67% with a normal EF and 62% with a low EF did not receive AVR. The low-gradient groups were significantly less likely to receive AVR both in the entire study period and in the more contemporary period from 2014 to 2017, despite the valvular heart disease guideline 2014 update indicating AVR was “reasonable” in patients with low-gradient AS – a 2a recommendation upgraded to class 1 in the most recent 2020 update.
 

Better survival

In patients with a class 1 or potential class 2a indication, AVR was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality in all four AS subgroups:

• High gradient/normal EF: 3% vs. 15%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.42
• High-gradient/low EF: 16% vs. 72%; aHR, 0.28
• Low-gradient/normal EF: 5% vs. 14%; aHR, 0.73
• Low-gradient/low EF: 11% vs. 34%; aHR, 0.48; P < .001 for all

“I think what we need to do is change the paradigm, such that patients with a valve area that is less than or equal to 1 [cm2] is severe aortic stenosis until proven otherwise, and that essentially establishes a premise by which we default to treat these patients unless we can prove that it is in fact moderate,” Dr. Elmariah said.

Unfortunately, the opposite is currently true today, he said, and the default is not to treat and put patients through surgery or an invasive TAVR procedure unless physicians can definitively prove that it is severe AS. But they’re not always correct and don’t always have the ability to truly differentiate moderate from severe disease.

“The question, therefore, is ‘What do we do with those patients?’” Dr. Elmariah asked. “I think if a patient has symptoms, then we are obligated to intervene, given the stark difference in mortality that one sees when these patients go undertreated.”
 

Sounding the alarm

Robert Bonow, MD, a professor of cardiology at Northwestern University in Chicago and a writing committee member for the 2014 guideline update, said the study is a “big wake-up call” and “the take-home message is that we are missing some patients who have treatable aortic stenosis.”

The sheer magnitude of the problem, however, can be difficult to fully ascertain from administrative data like this, he said. Notably, patients who did not receive AVR were significantly older, with 37% aged 81-90 years and 12% over age 90, and had a lower hematocrit and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate. But it’s not clear how many had cancer, end-stage renal disease, or severe lung disease, which could have factored into the decision to undergo AVR.

“What’s also an issue is that over 50% of patients had low gradient disease, which is very problematic and takes careful assessment in an individual patient,” said Dr. Bonow, who is also editor-in-chief of JAMA Cardiology. “That’s all being generated by a low valve area of less than 1 cm2 from echo reports, so that’s not necessarily a careful prospective echo assessment ... so some of the patients with low-gradient disease may not have true severe aortic stenosis.”

Dr. Elmariah agreed that echocardiogram reports are not always clear cut and pointed out that referral to a valve specialist was highly predictive of whether or not a patient underwent AVR, supporting the class 1 guideline recommendation.

He also noted that Mass General is launching the DETECT-AS trial to determine whether electronic physician notifications highlighting clinical practice guideline recommendations will improve AVR utilization over standard care in 940 patients with severe AS on echocardiogram, defined by a valve area less than 1 cm2.

Reached for comment, Catherine Otto, MD, director of the Heart Valve Clinic at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a fellow member of the 2014 guideline writing committee, said “this adds to the data [that] we’re undertreating severe aortic stenosis, and it continues to be surprising given the availability of transcatheter options.”

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

Increasingly active patterns of physical activity were linked with reduced rates of overall mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD), but early rather than later in late life, in a 20-year follow-up cohort study.

In this population of people older than 65 years, researchers found that physical activity overall was associated with lower rates of incident CVD, particularly among men, and the association was strongest in people 70 to 75 years of age, rather than in older age groups.

They also looked at “trajectories,” or changes in activity over time, and found that a stable-high trajectory of activity was associated with a significantly lower risk for cardiovascular outcomes in men than in those with a stable-low trajectory. For women, more physical activity was consistently associated with lower CVD outcomes, although not statistically significantly so, except for overall mortality, which did reach significance.

Notably, the greatest reduction in cardiovascular risk was reported in people who did more than 20 minutes of physical exercise each day, and it was more pronounced in those 70 years of age.

Physical activity was also associated with a lower incidence of heart failure and coronary heart disease in older people, again especially early on in late life, reported Claudio Barbiellini Amidei, MD, University of Padua, Italy, and colleagues.

The data suggest that physical activity is more effective in preventing CVD onset when implemented early rather than later in life, noted Dr. Amidei in an email.

“The findings of our study are suggestive of a protective effect of physical activity in late-life on cardiovascular health. WHO recommendations for adults and older adults are to practice at least 20 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day. I believe this is a realistic target, and policy makers should raise awareness on the importance of achieving this goal at all ages, including in late-life,” Dr. Amidei said.

The study was published online Feb. 14 in Heart.

Previous research has demonstrated that the most benefit of high physical activity, compared with low, begins at about 60 years of age, and that is because younger people are at much lower risk, noted Carl “Chip” Lavie MD, FACC, medical director of cardiac rehabilitation and prevention, Ochsner Clinical School–The University of Queensland School of Medicine, New Orleans, who was not involved in the study.

“At quite old ages, for example over age 80, resistance exercise or weight training and balance training may be even more important than aerobic training,” he added.

Activity ‘trajectories’

The benefits of physical activity on cardiovascular risk are well established, the researchers note. Less clear is the role that trajectories of activity over time play, although research to date suggests a reduction in risk with increasing activity from mid-life to early old age, they write.

For the current analysis, the researchers assessed 3,099 Italian participants. Mean age was about 75 years, and baseline data were collected from 1995 to 1997.

Follow-up visits were conducted after 4 years and again after 7 years. Using hospital medical records and mortality data, the researchers were able to collect surveillance data through 2018. Hospital records, surveys, and clinical assessments helped them identify incident and prevalent cardiovascular diseases, such as stroke, coronary heart disease, and heart failure.

Participants’ physical activity patterns were classified as stable-high, low-increasing, high-decreasing, and stable-low. Exposure was evaluated at 70, 75, 80, and 85 years of age.

“In our analyses, we focused on moderate to vigorous physical activity, and these include a broad range of exercises, such as walking very briskly, playing tennis, [and] jogging, but comprise also other activities, such as gardening or doing household chores,” said Dr. Amidei.

Patterns of stable-low physical activity were linked to a significantly greater risk for cardiovascular outcomes in men than patterns of stable-high physical activity (hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.86; P for trend = .002).

No significant relation was found between physical activity and stroke, the researchers note.

“The benefits of physical activity seem to lessen above the age of 75 years and seem more important in men,” noted Dr. Lavie. “This may be partly due to the higher risk of CVD in men. Women typically lag 13 to 15 years behind men for CVD but start catching up in older years.”

Limitations of the study include lack of information regarding physical activity during mid-life, the limited number of stroke events, the relatively few participants older than 85 years, and potential recall bias, the researchers note.

Another limitation was that the physical activity data were based on patient surveys collected 3 years apart and did not involve the use of an accelerometer, the researchers add.

“Future observational studies are required to confirm our findings and pathophysiological studies are warranted to examine the underlying biological mechanisms. Physical activity is likely to be beneficial at any age, but to summarize our findings, we could say that when it comes to being physically active, the sooner the better,” concluded Dr. Amidei.

Dr. Amidei reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Increasingly active patterns of physical activity were linked with reduced rates of overall mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD), but early rather than later in late life, in a 20-year follow-up cohort study.

In this population of people older than 65 years, researchers found that physical activity overall was associated with lower rates of incident CVD, particularly among men, and the association was strongest in people 70 to 75 years of age, rather than in older age groups.

They also looked at “trajectories,” or changes in activity over time, and found that a stable-high trajectory of activity was associated with a significantly lower risk for cardiovascular outcomes in men than in those with a stable-low trajectory. For women, more physical activity was consistently associated with lower CVD outcomes, although not statistically significantly so, except for overall mortality, which did reach significance.

Notably, the greatest reduction in cardiovascular risk was reported in people who did more than 20 minutes of physical exercise each day, and it was more pronounced in those 70 years of age.

Physical activity was also associated with a lower incidence of heart failure and coronary heart disease in older people, again especially early on in late life, reported Claudio Barbiellini Amidei, MD, University of Padua, Italy, and colleagues.

The data suggest that physical activity is more effective in preventing CVD onset when implemented early rather than later in life, noted Dr. Amidei in an email.

“The findings of our study are suggestive of a protective effect of physical activity in late-life on cardiovascular health. WHO recommendations for adults and older adults are to practice at least 20 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day. I believe this is a realistic target, and policy makers should raise awareness on the importance of achieving this goal at all ages, including in late-life,” Dr. Amidei said.

The study was published online Feb. 14 in Heart.

Previous research has demonstrated that the most benefit of high physical activity, compared with low, begins at about 60 years of age, and that is because younger people are at much lower risk, noted Carl “Chip” Lavie MD, FACC, medical director of cardiac rehabilitation and prevention, Ochsner Clinical School–The University of Queensland School of Medicine, New Orleans, who was not involved in the study.

“At quite old ages, for example over age 80, resistance exercise or weight training and balance training may be even more important than aerobic training,” he added.

Activity ‘trajectories’

The benefits of physical activity on cardiovascular risk are well established, the researchers note. Less clear is the role that trajectories of activity over time play, although research to date suggests a reduction in risk with increasing activity from mid-life to early old age, they write.

For the current analysis, the researchers assessed 3,099 Italian participants. Mean age was about 75 years, and baseline data were collected from 1995 to 1997.

Follow-up visits were conducted after 4 years and again after 7 years. Using hospital medical records and mortality data, the researchers were able to collect surveillance data through 2018. Hospital records, surveys, and clinical assessments helped them identify incident and prevalent cardiovascular diseases, such as stroke, coronary heart disease, and heart failure.

Participants’ physical activity patterns were classified as stable-high, low-increasing, high-decreasing, and stable-low. Exposure was evaluated at 70, 75, 80, and 85 years of age.

“In our analyses, we focused on moderate to vigorous physical activity, and these include a broad range of exercises, such as walking very briskly, playing tennis, [and] jogging, but comprise also other activities, such as gardening or doing household chores,” said Dr. Amidei.

Patterns of stable-low physical activity were linked to a significantly greater risk for cardiovascular outcomes in men than patterns of stable-high physical activity (hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.86; P for trend = .002).

No significant relation was found between physical activity and stroke, the researchers note.

“The benefits of physical activity seem to lessen above the age of 75 years and seem more important in men,” noted Dr. Lavie. “This may be partly due to the higher risk of CVD in men. Women typically lag 13 to 15 years behind men for CVD but start catching up in older years.”

Limitations of the study include lack of information regarding physical activity during mid-life, the limited number of stroke events, the relatively few participants older than 85 years, and potential recall bias, the researchers note.

Another limitation was that the physical activity data were based on patient surveys collected 3 years apart and did not involve the use of an accelerometer, the researchers add.

“Future observational studies are required to confirm our findings and pathophysiological studies are warranted to examine the underlying biological mechanisms. Physical activity is likely to be beneficial at any age, but to summarize our findings, we could say that when it comes to being physically active, the sooner the better,” concluded Dr. Amidei.

Dr. Amidei reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Increasingly active patterns of physical activity were linked with reduced rates of overall mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD), but early rather than later in late life, in a 20-year follow-up cohort study.

In this population of people older than 65 years, researchers found that physical activity overall was associated with lower rates of incident CVD, particularly among men, and the association was strongest in people 70 to 75 years of age, rather than in older age groups.

They also looked at “trajectories,” or changes in activity over time, and found that a stable-high trajectory of activity was associated with a significantly lower risk for cardiovascular outcomes in men than in those with a stable-low trajectory. For women, more physical activity was consistently associated with lower CVD outcomes, although not statistically significantly so, except for overall mortality, which did reach significance.

Notably, the greatest reduction in cardiovascular risk was reported in people who did more than 20 minutes of physical exercise each day, and it was more pronounced in those 70 years of age.

Physical activity was also associated with a lower incidence of heart failure and coronary heart disease in older people, again especially early on in late life, reported Claudio Barbiellini Amidei, MD, University of Padua, Italy, and colleagues.

The data suggest that physical activity is more effective in preventing CVD onset when implemented early rather than later in life, noted Dr. Amidei in an email.

“The findings of our study are suggestive of a protective effect of physical activity in late-life on cardiovascular health. WHO recommendations for adults and older adults are to practice at least 20 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day. I believe this is a realistic target, and policy makers should raise awareness on the importance of achieving this goal at all ages, including in late-life,” Dr. Amidei said.

The study was published online Feb. 14 in Heart.

Previous research has demonstrated that the most benefit of high physical activity, compared with low, begins at about 60 years of age, and that is because younger people are at much lower risk, noted Carl “Chip” Lavie MD, FACC, medical director of cardiac rehabilitation and prevention, Ochsner Clinical School–The University of Queensland School of Medicine, New Orleans, who was not involved in the study.

“At quite old ages, for example over age 80, resistance exercise or weight training and balance training may be even more important than aerobic training,” he added.

Activity ‘trajectories’

The benefits of physical activity on cardiovascular risk are well established, the researchers note. Less clear is the role that trajectories of activity over time play, although research to date suggests a reduction in risk with increasing activity from mid-life to early old age, they write.

For the current analysis, the researchers assessed 3,099 Italian participants. Mean age was about 75 years, and baseline data were collected from 1995 to 1997.

Follow-up visits were conducted after 4 years and again after 7 years. Using hospital medical records and mortality data, the researchers were able to collect surveillance data through 2018. Hospital records, surveys, and clinical assessments helped them identify incident and prevalent cardiovascular diseases, such as stroke, coronary heart disease, and heart failure.

Participants’ physical activity patterns were classified as stable-high, low-increasing, high-decreasing, and stable-low. Exposure was evaluated at 70, 75, 80, and 85 years of age.

“In our analyses, we focused on moderate to vigorous physical activity, and these include a broad range of exercises, such as walking very briskly, playing tennis, [and] jogging, but comprise also other activities, such as gardening or doing household chores,” said Dr. Amidei.

Patterns of stable-low physical activity were linked to a significantly greater risk for cardiovascular outcomes in men than patterns of stable-high physical activity (hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.86; P for trend = .002).

No significant relation was found between physical activity and stroke, the researchers note.

“The benefits of physical activity seem to lessen above the age of 75 years and seem more important in men,” noted Dr. Lavie. “This may be partly due to the higher risk of CVD in men. Women typically lag 13 to 15 years behind men for CVD but start catching up in older years.”

Limitations of the study include lack of information regarding physical activity during mid-life, the limited number of stroke events, the relatively few participants older than 85 years, and potential recall bias, the researchers note.

Another limitation was that the physical activity data were based on patient surveys collected 3 years apart and did not involve the use of an accelerometer, the researchers add.

“Future observational studies are required to confirm our findings and pathophysiological studies are warranted to examine the underlying biological mechanisms. Physical activity is likely to be beneficial at any age, but to summarize our findings, we could say that when it comes to being physically active, the sooner the better,” concluded Dr. Amidei.

Dr. Amidei reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Research suggests that physicians have suicidal thoughts at about twice the rate of the general population (7.2% vs. 4%). Now, as they bear the weight of a multiyear pandemic alongside the perpetual struggle to maintain some semblance of work-life balance, their resiliency has been stretched to the brink.

In 2022, the Medscape Physician Suicide Report surveyed more than 13,000 physicians in 29 specialties who were candid about their experiences with suicidal thoughts, how they support their besieged colleagues, and their go-to coping strategies.

Overall, 21% of physicians reported having feelings of depression. Of those, 24% had clinical depression and 64% had colloquial depression. Physicians who felt sad or blue decreased slightly, compared with the 2021 report, but the number of physicians experiencing severe depression rose 4%.

One in 10 physicians said they have thought about or attempted suicide. However, the number of physicians with suicidal thoughts dropped to 9%, down substantially from the 22% who reported similar feelings in 2020.

Still, there was a slight uptick in women physicians contemplating suicide, likely linked to their larger share of childcare and family responsibilities.

Washington University School of Medicine

“They have needed to pull double duty even more than usual, and that may have increased their sense of burnout and vulnerability to suicidal thoughts,” said Andrea Giedinghagen, MD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis, and coauthor of “Physician Suicide: A Call to Action
 

Fighting the stigma of seeking mental health help

Although the number of physicians attempting, but not completing suicide, has remained steady at 1% for several years, the recent passage of the Dr. Lorna Breen Health Care Provider Protection Act by Congress aims to drive that figure even lower. Dr. Breen, an ED physician at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, died by suicide in April 2020. Overwhelmed by the onslaught of COVID patients, Dr. Breen was reluctant to seek mental health services for fear of being ostracized.

“Many physicians don’t seek mental health care due to fear of negative consequences in the workplace, including retribution, exclusion, loss of license, or even their job,” Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, told this news organization. “This was the experience of Dr. Lorna Breen. She was convinced that if she talked to a professional, she would lose her medical license. Perhaps if Dr. Breen was equipped with the accurate information – there is no mental health reporting requirement in her state’s medical license application – it might have saved her life.”

This same stigma was reflected in the survey, with one physician saying: “I’m afraid that if I spoke to a therapist, I’d have to report receiving psychiatric treatment to credentialing or licensing boards.” Roughly 40% of survey respondents, regardless of age, chose not to disclose their suicidal thoughts to anyone, not even a family member or suicide hotline. And just a tiny portion of physicians (10% of men and 13% of women) said that a colleague had discussed their suicidal thoughts with them.

“There is a longstanding culture of silence around physician mental health in the medical community,” said Dr. Price. “The strategies within the Act are critical to fixing this culture and making it acceptable and normalized for physicians to seek mental health care,” and for it to “become a fundamental and ongoing element of being a practicing physician.”

As part of the legislation, the Department of Health & Human Services must award grants to hospitals, medical associations, and other entities to facilitate mental health programs for providers. They must also establish policy recommendations and conduct campaigns to improve providers’ mental and behavioral health, encourage providers to seek mental health support and assistance, remove barriers to such treatment, and identify best practices to prevent suicide and promote resiliency
 

Addressing barriers to mental health

The new bill is a step in the right direction, but Dr. Price said health organizations must do more to address the six key structural barriers that are “discouraging physicians from seeking [mental health] help,” such as the inclusion of “intrusive mental health questions on medical board, hospital credentialing, and malpractice insurance applications.”

In addition, employers should allow physicians to seek out-of-network mental health services, if necessary, and not cause further humiliation by requiring them to be treated by colleagues within their hospital system. A similar proposal has recently been introduced and is gaining traction in Utah, following the suicide of ED physician Scott Jolley, MD, in 2021 after he was admitted for psychiatric care where he worked.

Diminishing the stigma surrounding physicians’ mental health encourages a more open dialogue, so if a colleague reaches out – listen. “Start by thanking the colleague for sharing the information: ‘I’m sure that wasn’t easy but I appreciate that you respect me enough to share this. Let’s talk more,’ ” said Michael F. Myers, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn . “Then ask what you can do to help, which cuts down on the sense of isolation that colleague may feel.”

According to the survey, many physicians have developed strategies to support their happiness and mental health. Although fewer than 10% said reducing work hours or transitioning to a part-time schedule was most effective, the majority of physicians relied on spending time with family and friends (68%) – a choice that has considerable benefits.

“Close and intimate relationships are the single most protective factor for our mental health,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer for UC Davis Health and professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Isolation and loneliness are very important stressors, and we know that about 25% of the population reports being lonely.”

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

Research suggests that physicians have suicidal thoughts at about twice the rate of the general population (7.2% vs. 4%). Now, as they bear the weight of a multiyear pandemic alongside the perpetual struggle to maintain some semblance of work-life balance, their resiliency has been stretched to the brink.

In 2022, the Medscape Physician Suicide Report surveyed more than 13,000 physicians in 29 specialties who were candid about their experiences with suicidal thoughts, how they support their besieged colleagues, and their go-to coping strategies.

Overall, 21% of physicians reported having feelings of depression. Of those, 24% had clinical depression and 64% had colloquial depression. Physicians who felt sad or blue decreased slightly, compared with the 2021 report, but the number of physicians experiencing severe depression rose 4%.

One in 10 physicians said they have thought about or attempted suicide. However, the number of physicians with suicidal thoughts dropped to 9%, down substantially from the 22% who reported similar feelings in 2020.

Still, there was a slight uptick in women physicians contemplating suicide, likely linked to their larger share of childcare and family responsibilities.

Washington University School of Medicine

“They have needed to pull double duty even more than usual, and that may have increased their sense of burnout and vulnerability to suicidal thoughts,” said Andrea Giedinghagen, MD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis, and coauthor of “Physician Suicide: A Call to Action
 

Fighting the stigma of seeking mental health help

Although the number of physicians attempting, but not completing suicide, has remained steady at 1% for several years, the recent passage of the Dr. Lorna Breen Health Care Provider Protection Act by Congress aims to drive that figure even lower. Dr. Breen, an ED physician at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, died by suicide in April 2020. Overwhelmed by the onslaught of COVID patients, Dr. Breen was reluctant to seek mental health services for fear of being ostracized.

“Many physicians don’t seek mental health care due to fear of negative consequences in the workplace, including retribution, exclusion, loss of license, or even their job,” Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, told this news organization. “This was the experience of Dr. Lorna Breen. She was convinced that if she talked to a professional, she would lose her medical license. Perhaps if Dr. Breen was equipped with the accurate information – there is no mental health reporting requirement in her state’s medical license application – it might have saved her life.”

This same stigma was reflected in the survey, with one physician saying: “I’m afraid that if I spoke to a therapist, I’d have to report receiving psychiatric treatment to credentialing or licensing boards.” Roughly 40% of survey respondents, regardless of age, chose not to disclose their suicidal thoughts to anyone, not even a family member or suicide hotline. And just a tiny portion of physicians (10% of men and 13% of women) said that a colleague had discussed their suicidal thoughts with them.

“There is a longstanding culture of silence around physician mental health in the medical community,” said Dr. Price. “The strategies within the Act are critical to fixing this culture and making it acceptable and normalized for physicians to seek mental health care,” and for it to “become a fundamental and ongoing element of being a practicing physician.”

As part of the legislation, the Department of Health & Human Services must award grants to hospitals, medical associations, and other entities to facilitate mental health programs for providers. They must also establish policy recommendations and conduct campaigns to improve providers’ mental and behavioral health, encourage providers to seek mental health support and assistance, remove barriers to such treatment, and identify best practices to prevent suicide and promote resiliency
 

Addressing barriers to mental health

The new bill is a step in the right direction, but Dr. Price said health organizations must do more to address the six key structural barriers that are “discouraging physicians from seeking [mental health] help,” such as the inclusion of “intrusive mental health questions on medical board, hospital credentialing, and malpractice insurance applications.”

In addition, employers should allow physicians to seek out-of-network mental health services, if necessary, and not cause further humiliation by requiring them to be treated by colleagues within their hospital system. A similar proposal has recently been introduced and is gaining traction in Utah, following the suicide of ED physician Scott Jolley, MD, in 2021 after he was admitted for psychiatric care where he worked.

Diminishing the stigma surrounding physicians’ mental health encourages a more open dialogue, so if a colleague reaches out – listen. “Start by thanking the colleague for sharing the information: ‘I’m sure that wasn’t easy but I appreciate that you respect me enough to share this. Let’s talk more,’ ” said Michael F. Myers, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn . “Then ask what you can do to help, which cuts down on the sense of isolation that colleague may feel.”

According to the survey, many physicians have developed strategies to support their happiness and mental health. Although fewer than 10% said reducing work hours or transitioning to a part-time schedule was most effective, the majority of physicians relied on spending time with family and friends (68%) – a choice that has considerable benefits.

“Close and intimate relationships are the single most protective factor for our mental health,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer for UC Davis Health and professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Isolation and loneliness are very important stressors, and we know that about 25% of the population reports being lonely.”

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

Research suggests that physicians have suicidal thoughts at about twice the rate of the general population (7.2% vs. 4%). Now, as they bear the weight of a multiyear pandemic alongside the perpetual struggle to maintain some semblance of work-life balance, their resiliency has been stretched to the brink.

In 2022, the Medscape Physician Suicide Report surveyed more than 13,000 physicians in 29 specialties who were candid about their experiences with suicidal thoughts, how they support their besieged colleagues, and their go-to coping strategies.

Overall, 21% of physicians reported having feelings of depression. Of those, 24% had clinical depression and 64% had colloquial depression. Physicians who felt sad or blue decreased slightly, compared with the 2021 report, but the number of physicians experiencing severe depression rose 4%.

One in 10 physicians said they have thought about or attempted suicide. However, the number of physicians with suicidal thoughts dropped to 9%, down substantially from the 22% who reported similar feelings in 2020.

Still, there was a slight uptick in women physicians contemplating suicide, likely linked to their larger share of childcare and family responsibilities.

Washington University School of Medicine

“They have needed to pull double duty even more than usual, and that may have increased their sense of burnout and vulnerability to suicidal thoughts,” said Andrea Giedinghagen, MD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis, and coauthor of “Physician Suicide: A Call to Action
 

Fighting the stigma of seeking mental health help

Although the number of physicians attempting, but not completing suicide, has remained steady at 1% for several years, the recent passage of the Dr. Lorna Breen Health Care Provider Protection Act by Congress aims to drive that figure even lower. Dr. Breen, an ED physician at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, died by suicide in April 2020. Overwhelmed by the onslaught of COVID patients, Dr. Breen was reluctant to seek mental health services for fear of being ostracized.

“Many physicians don’t seek mental health care due to fear of negative consequences in the workplace, including retribution, exclusion, loss of license, or even their job,” Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, told this news organization. “This was the experience of Dr. Lorna Breen. She was convinced that if she talked to a professional, she would lose her medical license. Perhaps if Dr. Breen was equipped with the accurate information – there is no mental health reporting requirement in her state’s medical license application – it might have saved her life.”

This same stigma was reflected in the survey, with one physician saying: “I’m afraid that if I spoke to a therapist, I’d have to report receiving psychiatric treatment to credentialing or licensing boards.” Roughly 40% of survey respondents, regardless of age, chose not to disclose their suicidal thoughts to anyone, not even a family member or suicide hotline. And just a tiny portion of physicians (10% of men and 13% of women) said that a colleague had discussed their suicidal thoughts with them.

“There is a longstanding culture of silence around physician mental health in the medical community,” said Dr. Price. “The strategies within the Act are critical to fixing this culture and making it acceptable and normalized for physicians to seek mental health care,” and for it to “become a fundamental and ongoing element of being a practicing physician.”

As part of the legislation, the Department of Health & Human Services must award grants to hospitals, medical associations, and other entities to facilitate mental health programs for providers. They must also establish policy recommendations and conduct campaigns to improve providers’ mental and behavioral health, encourage providers to seek mental health support and assistance, remove barriers to such treatment, and identify best practices to prevent suicide and promote resiliency
 

Addressing barriers to mental health

The new bill is a step in the right direction, but Dr. Price said health organizations must do more to address the six key structural barriers that are “discouraging physicians from seeking [mental health] help,” such as the inclusion of “intrusive mental health questions on medical board, hospital credentialing, and malpractice insurance applications.”

In addition, employers should allow physicians to seek out-of-network mental health services, if necessary, and not cause further humiliation by requiring them to be treated by colleagues within their hospital system. A similar proposal has recently been introduced and is gaining traction in Utah, following the suicide of ED physician Scott Jolley, MD, in 2021 after he was admitted for psychiatric care where he worked.

Diminishing the stigma surrounding physicians’ mental health encourages a more open dialogue, so if a colleague reaches out – listen. “Start by thanking the colleague for sharing the information: ‘I’m sure that wasn’t easy but I appreciate that you respect me enough to share this. Let’s talk more,’ ” said Michael F. Myers, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn . “Then ask what you can do to help, which cuts down on the sense of isolation that colleague may feel.”

According to the survey, many physicians have developed strategies to support their happiness and mental health. Although fewer than 10% said reducing work hours or transitioning to a part-time schedule was most effective, the majority of physicians relied on spending time with family and friends (68%) – a choice that has considerable benefits.

“Close and intimate relationships are the single most protective factor for our mental health,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer for UC Davis Health and professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Isolation and loneliness are very important stressors, and we know that about 25% of the population reports being lonely.”

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

Patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) who start lipid-lowering treatment earlier in life may reduce their cardiovascular risk, compared with those who don’t begin treatment early, according to results of a recent meta-analysis.

They showed a difference in the carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) between patients with and without FH that increased with age, but there was also a difference in IMT seen among patients with FH who started treatment early, compared with untreated patients with FH, Kika van Bergen en Henegouwen, of the departments of pediatrics and epidemiology and data science at Amsterdam University Medical Center, and colleagues wrote in their report, published in the Journal of Clinical Lipidology.

“The fact that the difference in IMT increases with age between FH patients and unaffected controls, and is more pronounced in studies with untreated FH patients than in studies with treated patients, suggests that starting treatment already at a young age in patients with FH is preferred,” the researchers wrote. “However, despite treatment, IMT in treated FH patients is still thicker in comparison to subjects without FH.”

The researchers identified 42 studies with among patients with FH and healthy control groups across the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Trials.gov databases up to a cutoff date of April 2020, with 39 studies specifically examining carotid IMT, 2 studies evaluating carotid and femoral IMT, and 1 study evaluating femoral IMT alone. Overall, the researchers examined IMT measurements in 3,796 patients with FH and 2,363 control group participants.

Although data on age and gender for FH and control groups were not available in 6 studies, the mean age ranged from 9 to 57 years for patients with FH and from 8 to 61 years in the control group. Men comprised just under half of both the FH and control groups.

The mean between-group difference in carotid IMT in 34 studies was 0.11 mm (95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.15 mm; P < .001) for patients with FH, compared with the control group, while the mean difference in femoral IMT in three studies was 0.47 mm (95% CI, 0.19-0.74 mm; P < .001) between FH and control groups.

In 13 studies in which data on differences between partly treated and untreated FH were available, there was a significant between-group difference in carotid IMT with partly treated patients with FH, compared with the control group (0.05 mm; 95% CI, 0.03-0.08 mm; P < .001), but a larger mean between-group difference in carotid IMT among untreated patients with FH, compared with a control group (0.12 mm; 95% CI, 0.03-0.21 mm; P = .009).

The researchers also analyzed how age impacts carotid IMT, and they found patients with FH had a mean increase of 0.0018 mm (95% CI, –0.0007 to 0.0042 mm) over a control group in 34 studies. For patients with partly treated FH, compared with patients with untreated FH, the mean between-group increase per year was smaller (0.0023 mm; 95% CI, 0.0021-0.0025 mm), compared with the control group (0.0104 mm; 95% CI, 0.0100-0.0108 mm).

“This sign of residual risk might suggest that more robust cholesterol-lowering treatment and achieving treatment targets, or earlier treatment initiation, is needed to reduce IMT progression to non-FH conditions,” the researchers said. “Therefore, we must find and diagnose these patients, and treat them according to current guidelines.”

Limitations of the authors’ meta-analyses include heterogeneity among studies, differences in IMT measurement protocols, and inclusion of studies with an open-label design. Although randomized clinical trials would be preferable to compare treatment effect, “since statin therapy is indicated in FH patients to reduce [cardiovascular disease], it would be unethical to have a placebo group,” they said.

The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) who start lipid-lowering treatment earlier in life may reduce their cardiovascular risk, compared with those who don’t begin treatment early, according to results of a recent meta-analysis.

They showed a difference in the carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) between patients with and without FH that increased with age, but there was also a difference in IMT seen among patients with FH who started treatment early, compared with untreated patients with FH, Kika van Bergen en Henegouwen, of the departments of pediatrics and epidemiology and data science at Amsterdam University Medical Center, and colleagues wrote in their report, published in the Journal of Clinical Lipidology.

“The fact that the difference in IMT increases with age between FH patients and unaffected controls, and is more pronounced in studies with untreated FH patients than in studies with treated patients, suggests that starting treatment already at a young age in patients with FH is preferred,” the researchers wrote. “However, despite treatment, IMT in treated FH patients is still thicker in comparison to subjects without FH.”

The researchers identified 42 studies with among patients with FH and healthy control groups across the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Trials.gov databases up to a cutoff date of April 2020, with 39 studies specifically examining carotid IMT, 2 studies evaluating carotid and femoral IMT, and 1 study evaluating femoral IMT alone. Overall, the researchers examined IMT measurements in 3,796 patients with FH and 2,363 control group participants.

Although data on age and gender for FH and control groups were not available in 6 studies, the mean age ranged from 9 to 57 years for patients with FH and from 8 to 61 years in the control group. Men comprised just under half of both the FH and control groups.

The mean between-group difference in carotid IMT in 34 studies was 0.11 mm (95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.15 mm; P < .001) for patients with FH, compared with the control group, while the mean difference in femoral IMT in three studies was 0.47 mm (95% CI, 0.19-0.74 mm; P < .001) between FH and control groups.

In 13 studies in which data on differences between partly treated and untreated FH were available, there was a significant between-group difference in carotid IMT with partly treated patients with FH, compared with the control group (0.05 mm; 95% CI, 0.03-0.08 mm; P < .001), but a larger mean between-group difference in carotid IMT among untreated patients with FH, compared with a control group (0.12 mm; 95% CI, 0.03-0.21 mm; P = .009).

The researchers also analyzed how age impacts carotid IMT, and they found patients with FH had a mean increase of 0.0018 mm (95% CI, –0.0007 to 0.0042 mm) over a control group in 34 studies. For patients with partly treated FH, compared with patients with untreated FH, the mean between-group increase per year was smaller (0.0023 mm; 95% CI, 0.0021-0.0025 mm), compared with the control group (0.0104 mm; 95% CI, 0.0100-0.0108 mm).

“This sign of residual risk might suggest that more robust cholesterol-lowering treatment and achieving treatment targets, or earlier treatment initiation, is needed to reduce IMT progression to non-FH conditions,” the researchers said. “Therefore, we must find and diagnose these patients, and treat them according to current guidelines.”

Limitations of the authors’ meta-analyses include heterogeneity among studies, differences in IMT measurement protocols, and inclusion of studies with an open-label design. Although randomized clinical trials would be preferable to compare treatment effect, “since statin therapy is indicated in FH patients to reduce [cardiovascular disease], it would be unethical to have a placebo group,” they said.

The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) who start lipid-lowering treatment earlier in life may reduce their cardiovascular risk, compared with those who don’t begin treatment early, according to results of a recent meta-analysis.

They showed a difference in the carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) between patients with and without FH that increased with age, but there was also a difference in IMT seen among patients with FH who started treatment early, compared with untreated patients with FH, Kika van Bergen en Henegouwen, of the departments of pediatrics and epidemiology and data science at Amsterdam University Medical Center, and colleagues wrote in their report, published in the Journal of Clinical Lipidology.

“The fact that the difference in IMT increases with age between FH patients and unaffected controls, and is more pronounced in studies with untreated FH patients than in studies with treated patients, suggests that starting treatment already at a young age in patients with FH is preferred,” the researchers wrote. “However, despite treatment, IMT in treated FH patients is still thicker in comparison to subjects without FH.”

The researchers identified 42 studies with among patients with FH and healthy control groups across the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Trials.gov databases up to a cutoff date of April 2020, with 39 studies specifically examining carotid IMT, 2 studies evaluating carotid and femoral IMT, and 1 study evaluating femoral IMT alone. Overall, the researchers examined IMT measurements in 3,796 patients with FH and 2,363 control group participants.

Although data on age and gender for FH and control groups were not available in 6 studies, the mean age ranged from 9 to 57 years for patients with FH and from 8 to 61 years in the control group. Men comprised just under half of both the FH and control groups.

The mean between-group difference in carotid IMT in 34 studies was 0.11 mm (95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.15 mm; P < .001) for patients with FH, compared with the control group, while the mean difference in femoral IMT in three studies was 0.47 mm (95% CI, 0.19-0.74 mm; P < .001) between FH and control groups.

In 13 studies in which data on differences between partly treated and untreated FH were available, there was a significant between-group difference in carotid IMT with partly treated patients with FH, compared with the control group (0.05 mm; 95% CI, 0.03-0.08 mm; P < .001), but a larger mean between-group difference in carotid IMT among untreated patients with FH, compared with a control group (0.12 mm; 95% CI, 0.03-0.21 mm; P = .009).

The researchers also analyzed how age impacts carotid IMT, and they found patients with FH had a mean increase of 0.0018 mm (95% CI, –0.0007 to 0.0042 mm) over a control group in 34 studies. For patients with partly treated FH, compared with patients with untreated FH, the mean between-group increase per year was smaller (0.0023 mm; 95% CI, 0.0021-0.0025 mm), compared with the control group (0.0104 mm; 95% CI, 0.0100-0.0108 mm).

“This sign of residual risk might suggest that more robust cholesterol-lowering treatment and achieving treatment targets, or earlier treatment initiation, is needed to reduce IMT progression to non-FH conditions,” the researchers said. “Therefore, we must find and diagnose these patients, and treat them according to current guidelines.”

Limitations of the authors’ meta-analyses include heterogeneity among studies, differences in IMT measurement protocols, and inclusion of studies with an open-label design. Although randomized clinical trials would be preferable to compare treatment effect, “since statin therapy is indicated in FH patients to reduce [cardiovascular disease], it would be unethical to have a placebo group,” they said.

The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

The debate on whether the popular class of antihypertensive drugs, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), may be associated with an increased risk for cancer has been reopened with the publication of a new meta-analysis.

The analysis found an increasing risk for cancer, and specifically lung cancer, with increasing cumulative exposure to these drugs.

The findings are reported in a study published online in PLOS ONE.

The author of this new meta-analysis is Ilke Sipahi, MD, a cardiologist from Acibadem University Medical School, Istanbul, who previously raised this issue in an initial meta-analysis published in 2010.

“The new meta-analysis is important because it is the first study to investigate whether there is a dose response in the association between ARBs and cancer,” Dr. Sipahi told this news organization.

“I found a clear signal of increased risk of cancer as exposure to ARBs increased, and the association started to become significant when the maximum dose was taken for 3 years,” he added.

Dr. Sipahi explained that in the first meta-analysis published in Lancet Oncology, he and his colleagues reported an increased cancer risk with ARBs based on observations from high-exposure trials – those that included higher doses of ARBs with a long duration of follow-up.

Following this publication, an investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration refuted the risk, and a collaboration of ARB trial investigators also performed an analysis published in the Journal of Hypertension (2011. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e328344a7de), which again did not show an increased risk for cancer with use of ARBs.

Dr. Sipahi claims that those analyses by the FDA and the ARB Trialists Collaboration, which were all trial-level meta-analyses, diluted the “high exposure” data (including higher doses taken for longer periods of time) with a large amount of other data on much lower exposures (lower doses and/or shorter time periods).

“The overall risk would then inevitably become nonsignificant. These analyses also did not look at different exposure levels,” he says.

“For cancer, the degree of exposure is obviously very important. The risk associated with smoking 2 or 3 cigarettes a day for a year is very different from that of smoking 2 packs a day for 40 years. The same principle applies to taking a medication,” Dr. Sipahi asserts.

From these latest data, he estimates that 120 patients needed to be treated with the maximal daily dose of an ARB for 4.7 years for one excess cancer diagnosis, and 464 patients needed to be treated for one excess lung cancer.

“Given that at least 200 million individuals are being treated with an ARB globally, approximately 1.7 million excess cancers (and 430,000 lung cancers) in 4.6 years could be potentially caused by this class of drugs,” he suggests.

For the current analysis, Dr. Sipahi used trial-level data taken from the paper by the ARB Trialists Collaboration and investigated the effect of exposure to ARBs – including both the dose taken and the length of treatment – on risk for cancer. He performed metaregression analyses that he says has not been done before.

“I mathematically quantitated the degree of exposure in each trial. And when the degree of exposure was correlated with risk of cancer, there was a significant association.”

The new meta-analysis includes 15 randomized controlled trials. The two coprimary outcomes were the relationship between cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined and the relationship between cumulative exposure and risk for lung cancer.

In the trials, 74,021 patients were randomly assigned to an ARB, resulting in a total cumulative exposure of 172,389 person-years of exposure to daily high dose (or equivalent), and 61,197 patients were randomly assigned to control.

Results showed a highly significant correlation between the degree of cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined (slope = 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.11; P < .001) and also lung cancer (slope = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05-0.27; P = .003).

In trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 3 years of exposure to daily high dose, there was a statistically significant increase in risk for all cancers combined (risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19; P = .006).

There was also a statistically significant increase in risk for lung cancers in trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 2.5 years (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.44; P = .03).

In trials with lower cumulative exposure to ARBs, there was no increased risk either for all cancers combined or lung cancer.

Dr. Sipahi reports that the cumulative exposure-risk relationship with ARBs was independent of background angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor treatment or the type of control (placebo or nonplacebo control).

But he acknowledges that since this is a trial-level analysis, the effects of patient characteristics such as age and smoking status could not be examined because of lack of patient-level data.

Dr. Sipahi says he does not know the mechanism behind these findings, but he draws attention to the recent withdrawal of several thousand lots of ARB formulations because of the presence of potentially carcinogenic impurities that have been suggested to be a byproduct of ARB synthesis.

He also claims that unlike some other classes of antihypertensives, ARBs have not been shown to reduce the risk for MI, leading him to conclude that “other classes of antihypertensives with good safety and efficacy data (such as ACE-inhibitors, calcium-channel blockers or others) should become the preferred first-line agents in the treatment of hypertension.”

Dr. Sipahi wants the FDA to reinvestigate the issue of ARBs and cancer risk using individual patient data. “They already have the patient-level data from the trials. They should look at it more carefully and look at exposure levels and how they relate to cancer risk,” he said. “And the fact that there have been studies linking high ARB exposure levels to increased cancer risk should at least get a warning on the drug labels.”
 

A ‘clear increase’ in risk

Dr. Sipahi also points out that a link between ARBs and cancer has been found in another meta-analysis performed in 2013 by senior FDA analyst Thomas Marciniak, MD.

“Because he worked at the FDA, [Dr.] Marciniak had access to individual patent data. This is the best type of analysis and generally produces more accurate results than a trial-level meta-analysis,” Dr. Sipahi commented.

Dr. Marciniak’s analysis, which is available on the FDA website as part of another document, was not officially published elsewhere, and no further action has been taken on the issue.

Contacted by this news organization, Dr. Marciniak, who has now retired from the FDA, said he not only conducted a patient-level meta-analysis but also followed up adverse effects reported in the trials that could have been a symptom of cancer to establish further whether the patient was later diagnosed with cancer or not.

“I used every scrap of information sent in, including serious adverse event reports. I saw a clear increase in lung cancer risk with the ARBs,” Dr. Marciniak said. He did not, however, perform a dose-response relationship analysis.

Asked why his analysis and those from Dr. Sipahi reach different conclusions to those from the ARB Trialists Collaboration and the official FDA investigations, Dr. Marciniak said: “It may be that there were too many low-exposure trials that just washed out the difference. But trial data generally do not capture adverse events such as cancer, which takes a long time to develop, very well, and if you’re not really looking for it, you’re probably not going to find it.”

Dr. Marciniak said that Dr. Sipahi’s current findings are in line with his results. “Finding a dose response, to me, is extremely compelling, and I think the signal here is real,” he commented. “I think this new paper from Dr. Sipahi verifies what I found. I think the FDA should now release all individual patient data it has.”

Contacted for comment, an FDA spokesperson said, “Generally the FDA does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”

They added: “The FDA has ongoing assessment, surveillance, compliance, and pharmaceutical quality efforts across every product area, and we will continue to work with drug manufacturers to ensure safe, effective, and high-quality drugs for the American public. When we identify new and previously unrecognized risks to safety and quality, we react swiftly to resolve the problem, as we have done in responding to the recent findings of nitrosamines in certain medicines.”
 

Analysis ‘should be taken seriously’

Commenting on this new study, Steve Nissen, MD, a key figure in analyzing such complex data and who has himself uncovered problems with high-profile drugs in the past, says the current analysis should be taken seriously. 

Dr. Nissen, who was Dr. Sipahi’s senior during his post-doc position at the Cleveland Clinic, wrote an editorial accompanying Dr. Sipahi’s first paper and calling for urgent regulatory review of the evidence.

He says the new findings add to previous evidence suggesting a possible risk for cancer with ARBs.

“[Dr.] Sipahi is a capable researcher, and this analysis needs to be taken seriously, but it needs to be verified. It is not possible to draw a strong conclusion on this analysis, as it is not based on individual patient data, but I don’t think it should be ignored,” Dr. Nissen stated.

“I will say again what I said 12 years ago – that the regulatory agencies need to carefully review all their data in a very detailed way. The FDA and EMA have access to the individual patient data and are both very capable of doing the required analyses.”
 

Limitations of trial-level analysis

Asked to evaluate the statistics in the current paper, Andrew Althouse, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, and a clinical trial statistician, explained that the best way to do a thorough analysis of the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer would involve the use of patient-level data.

“As such data were not available to Dr. Sipahi, I believe he is doing as well as he can. But without full access to individual patient-level data from the respective trials, it is difficult to support any firm conclusions,” Dr. Althouse said in an interview.

He suggested that the meta-regression analyses used in the paper were unable to properly estimate the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer. 

“Taken at face value, the current analysis suggests that [in] trials with longer follow-up duration (and therefore greater cumulative exposure to ARB for the treatment group), the risk of developing cancer for patients in the ARB group versus the non-ARB group was progressively higher. But this study doesn’t take into account the actual amount of follow-up time for individual patients or potential differences in the amount of follow-up time between the two groups in each trial,” he noted.

Dr. Althouse says this raises the possibility of “competing risks” or the idea that if ARBs reduce cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular death, then there would be more patients remaining in that arm who could go on to develop cancer. “So a crude count of the number of cancer cases may look as though patients receiving ARBs are ‘more likely’ to develop cancer, but this is a mirage.”

He added: “When there are some patients dying during the study, the only way to tell whether the intervention actually increased the risk of other health-related complications is to have an analysis that properly accounts for each patient’s time-at-risk of the outcome. Unfortunately, properly analyzing this requires the use of patient-level data.”
 

Cardiologists skeptical?

Cardiology experts asked for thoughts on the new meta-analysis were also cautious to read too much into the findings.

Franz Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “Perhaps one would simply ignore this rambling, cherrypicking-based condemnation of ARBs if it were not for the powerful negative connotation of the word cancer. Thus, the meta-analysis of Dr. Sipahi purporting that ARBs could be increasing the development of cancers in a cumulative way is of concern to both physicians and patients.”

But, raising a similar point to Dr. Althouse about competing risks, Dr. Messerli said: “We have to consider that as one gets older, the cardiovascular disease state and cancer state will compete with each other for the outcome of death. The better that therapies protect against cardiovascular death, the more they will increase life expectancy and thus the risk of cancer.”

He also added that “in head-to-head comparisons with ACE inhibitors, ARBs showed similar efficacy in terms of death, CV mortality, MI, stroke, and end-stage kidney disease, so can we agree that the attempt of Dr. Sipahi to disparage ARBs as a class is much ado about nothing?”

Dr. Nissen, however, said he views the idea of competing risk as “a bit of a stretch” in this case. “Although ARBs are effective antihypertensive drugs, I would say there is very little evidence that they would prolong survival versus other antihypertensives.”

Dr. Sipahi also claims that this argument is not relevant to the current analysis. “ARBs did not increase survival in any of the high-exposure trials that showed an excess in cancers. Therefore, competing outcomes, or ‘survival bias’ to be more specific, is not a possibility here,” he says.

George Bakris, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago Medicine, noted that while the current study shows a slight increase in cancer incidence, especially lung cancer, among those taking ARBs for more than 3 years, it “totally ignores the overwhelming cardiovascular risk reduction seen in the trials.”

“Moreover,” he adds, “the author notes that the findings were independent of ACE-inhibitors, but he can’t rule out smoking and age as factors, two major risk factors for cancer and lung cancer, specifically. Thus, as typical of these types of analyses, the associations are probably true/true unrelated or, at best, partially related.”

Dr. Bakris referred to the potentially carcinogenic nitrosamine and azido compounds found in several ARB formulations that have resulted in recalls.

“At any stage of drug synthesis throughout each product’s lifetime, these impurities may evolve if an amine reacts with a nitrosating agent coexisting under appropriate conditions,” he said. “Drug regulatory authorities worldwide have established stringent guidelines on nitrosamine contamination for all drug products. The studies noted in the author’s analysis were done well before these guidelines were implemented. Hence, many of the issues raised by the authors using trials from 10-20 years ago are not of significant concern.”

Still, the cardiology experts all agreed on one thing – that patients should continue to take ARBs as prescribed.  

Noting that worldwide authorities are now addressing the issue of possible carcinogen contamination, Dr. Bakris stressed that patients “should not panic and should not stop their meds.”

Dr. Nissen added: “What we don’t want is for patents who are taking ARBs to stop taking these medications – hypertension is a deadly disorder, and these drugs have proven cardiovascular benefits.”

Dr. Sipahi received no specific funding for this work. He reports receiving lecture honoraria from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sandoz, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Pfizer, Ranbaxy, Servier, and ARIS and served on advisory boards for Novartis, Sanofi, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer and I.E. Ulagay. The other commenters do not report any relevant disclosures.

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

The debate on whether the popular class of antihypertensive drugs, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), may be associated with an increased risk for cancer has been reopened with the publication of a new meta-analysis.

The analysis found an increasing risk for cancer, and specifically lung cancer, with increasing cumulative exposure to these drugs.

The findings are reported in a study published online in PLOS ONE.

The author of this new meta-analysis is Ilke Sipahi, MD, a cardiologist from Acibadem University Medical School, Istanbul, who previously raised this issue in an initial meta-analysis published in 2010.

“The new meta-analysis is important because it is the first study to investigate whether there is a dose response in the association between ARBs and cancer,” Dr. Sipahi told this news organization.

“I found a clear signal of increased risk of cancer as exposure to ARBs increased, and the association started to become significant when the maximum dose was taken for 3 years,” he added.

Dr. Sipahi explained that in the first meta-analysis published in Lancet Oncology, he and his colleagues reported an increased cancer risk with ARBs based on observations from high-exposure trials – those that included higher doses of ARBs with a long duration of follow-up.

Following this publication, an investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration refuted the risk, and a collaboration of ARB trial investigators also performed an analysis published in the Journal of Hypertension (2011. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e328344a7de), which again did not show an increased risk for cancer with use of ARBs.

Dr. Sipahi claims that those analyses by the FDA and the ARB Trialists Collaboration, which were all trial-level meta-analyses, diluted the “high exposure” data (including higher doses taken for longer periods of time) with a large amount of other data on much lower exposures (lower doses and/or shorter time periods).

“The overall risk would then inevitably become nonsignificant. These analyses also did not look at different exposure levels,” he says.

“For cancer, the degree of exposure is obviously very important. The risk associated with smoking 2 or 3 cigarettes a day for a year is very different from that of smoking 2 packs a day for 40 years. The same principle applies to taking a medication,” Dr. Sipahi asserts.

From these latest data, he estimates that 120 patients needed to be treated with the maximal daily dose of an ARB for 4.7 years for one excess cancer diagnosis, and 464 patients needed to be treated for one excess lung cancer.

“Given that at least 200 million individuals are being treated with an ARB globally, approximately 1.7 million excess cancers (and 430,000 lung cancers) in 4.6 years could be potentially caused by this class of drugs,” he suggests.

For the current analysis, Dr. Sipahi used trial-level data taken from the paper by the ARB Trialists Collaboration and investigated the effect of exposure to ARBs – including both the dose taken and the length of treatment – on risk for cancer. He performed metaregression analyses that he says has not been done before.

“I mathematically quantitated the degree of exposure in each trial. And when the degree of exposure was correlated with risk of cancer, there was a significant association.”

The new meta-analysis includes 15 randomized controlled trials. The two coprimary outcomes were the relationship between cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined and the relationship between cumulative exposure and risk for lung cancer.

In the trials, 74,021 patients were randomly assigned to an ARB, resulting in a total cumulative exposure of 172,389 person-years of exposure to daily high dose (or equivalent), and 61,197 patients were randomly assigned to control.

Results showed a highly significant correlation between the degree of cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined (slope = 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.11; P < .001) and also lung cancer (slope = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05-0.27; P = .003).

In trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 3 years of exposure to daily high dose, there was a statistically significant increase in risk for all cancers combined (risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19; P = .006).

There was also a statistically significant increase in risk for lung cancers in trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 2.5 years (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.44; P = .03).

In trials with lower cumulative exposure to ARBs, there was no increased risk either for all cancers combined or lung cancer.

Dr. Sipahi reports that the cumulative exposure-risk relationship with ARBs was independent of background angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor treatment or the type of control (placebo or nonplacebo control).

But he acknowledges that since this is a trial-level analysis, the effects of patient characteristics such as age and smoking status could not be examined because of lack of patient-level data.

Dr. Sipahi says he does not know the mechanism behind these findings, but he draws attention to the recent withdrawal of several thousand lots of ARB formulations because of the presence of potentially carcinogenic impurities that have been suggested to be a byproduct of ARB synthesis.

He also claims that unlike some other classes of antihypertensives, ARBs have not been shown to reduce the risk for MI, leading him to conclude that “other classes of antihypertensives with good safety and efficacy data (such as ACE-inhibitors, calcium-channel blockers or others) should become the preferred first-line agents in the treatment of hypertension.”

Dr. Sipahi wants the FDA to reinvestigate the issue of ARBs and cancer risk using individual patient data. “They already have the patient-level data from the trials. They should look at it more carefully and look at exposure levels and how they relate to cancer risk,” he said. “And the fact that there have been studies linking high ARB exposure levels to increased cancer risk should at least get a warning on the drug labels.”
 

A ‘clear increase’ in risk

Dr. Sipahi also points out that a link between ARBs and cancer has been found in another meta-analysis performed in 2013 by senior FDA analyst Thomas Marciniak, MD.

“Because he worked at the FDA, [Dr.] Marciniak had access to individual patent data. This is the best type of analysis and generally produces more accurate results than a trial-level meta-analysis,” Dr. Sipahi commented.

Dr. Marciniak’s analysis, which is available on the FDA website as part of another document, was not officially published elsewhere, and no further action has been taken on the issue.

Contacted by this news organization, Dr. Marciniak, who has now retired from the FDA, said he not only conducted a patient-level meta-analysis but also followed up adverse effects reported in the trials that could have been a symptom of cancer to establish further whether the patient was later diagnosed with cancer or not.

“I used every scrap of information sent in, including serious adverse event reports. I saw a clear increase in lung cancer risk with the ARBs,” Dr. Marciniak said. He did not, however, perform a dose-response relationship analysis.

Asked why his analysis and those from Dr. Sipahi reach different conclusions to those from the ARB Trialists Collaboration and the official FDA investigations, Dr. Marciniak said: “It may be that there were too many low-exposure trials that just washed out the difference. But trial data generally do not capture adverse events such as cancer, which takes a long time to develop, very well, and if you’re not really looking for it, you’re probably not going to find it.”

Dr. Marciniak said that Dr. Sipahi’s current findings are in line with his results. “Finding a dose response, to me, is extremely compelling, and I think the signal here is real,” he commented. “I think this new paper from Dr. Sipahi verifies what I found. I think the FDA should now release all individual patient data it has.”

Contacted for comment, an FDA spokesperson said, “Generally the FDA does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”

They added: “The FDA has ongoing assessment, surveillance, compliance, and pharmaceutical quality efforts across every product area, and we will continue to work with drug manufacturers to ensure safe, effective, and high-quality drugs for the American public. When we identify new and previously unrecognized risks to safety and quality, we react swiftly to resolve the problem, as we have done in responding to the recent findings of nitrosamines in certain medicines.”
 

Analysis ‘should be taken seriously’

Commenting on this new study, Steve Nissen, MD, a key figure in analyzing such complex data and who has himself uncovered problems with high-profile drugs in the past, says the current analysis should be taken seriously. 

Dr. Nissen, who was Dr. Sipahi’s senior during his post-doc position at the Cleveland Clinic, wrote an editorial accompanying Dr. Sipahi’s first paper and calling for urgent regulatory review of the evidence.

He says the new findings add to previous evidence suggesting a possible risk for cancer with ARBs.

“[Dr.] Sipahi is a capable researcher, and this analysis needs to be taken seriously, but it needs to be verified. It is not possible to draw a strong conclusion on this analysis, as it is not based on individual patient data, but I don’t think it should be ignored,” Dr. Nissen stated.

“I will say again what I said 12 years ago – that the regulatory agencies need to carefully review all their data in a very detailed way. The FDA and EMA have access to the individual patient data and are both very capable of doing the required analyses.”
 

Limitations of trial-level analysis

Asked to evaluate the statistics in the current paper, Andrew Althouse, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, and a clinical trial statistician, explained that the best way to do a thorough analysis of the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer would involve the use of patient-level data.

“As such data were not available to Dr. Sipahi, I believe he is doing as well as he can. But without full access to individual patient-level data from the respective trials, it is difficult to support any firm conclusions,” Dr. Althouse said in an interview.

He suggested that the meta-regression analyses used in the paper were unable to properly estimate the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer. 

“Taken at face value, the current analysis suggests that [in] trials with longer follow-up duration (and therefore greater cumulative exposure to ARB for the treatment group), the risk of developing cancer for patients in the ARB group versus the non-ARB group was progressively higher. But this study doesn’t take into account the actual amount of follow-up time for individual patients or potential differences in the amount of follow-up time between the two groups in each trial,” he noted.

Dr. Althouse says this raises the possibility of “competing risks” or the idea that if ARBs reduce cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular death, then there would be more patients remaining in that arm who could go on to develop cancer. “So a crude count of the number of cancer cases may look as though patients receiving ARBs are ‘more likely’ to develop cancer, but this is a mirage.”

He added: “When there are some patients dying during the study, the only way to tell whether the intervention actually increased the risk of other health-related complications is to have an analysis that properly accounts for each patient’s time-at-risk of the outcome. Unfortunately, properly analyzing this requires the use of patient-level data.”
 

Cardiologists skeptical?

Cardiology experts asked for thoughts on the new meta-analysis were also cautious to read too much into the findings.

Franz Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “Perhaps one would simply ignore this rambling, cherrypicking-based condemnation of ARBs if it were not for the powerful negative connotation of the word cancer. Thus, the meta-analysis of Dr. Sipahi purporting that ARBs could be increasing the development of cancers in a cumulative way is of concern to both physicians and patients.”

But, raising a similar point to Dr. Althouse about competing risks, Dr. Messerli said: “We have to consider that as one gets older, the cardiovascular disease state and cancer state will compete with each other for the outcome of death. The better that therapies protect against cardiovascular death, the more they will increase life expectancy and thus the risk of cancer.”

He also added that “in head-to-head comparisons with ACE inhibitors, ARBs showed similar efficacy in terms of death, CV mortality, MI, stroke, and end-stage kidney disease, so can we agree that the attempt of Dr. Sipahi to disparage ARBs as a class is much ado about nothing?”

Dr. Nissen, however, said he views the idea of competing risk as “a bit of a stretch” in this case. “Although ARBs are effective antihypertensive drugs, I would say there is very little evidence that they would prolong survival versus other antihypertensives.”

Dr. Sipahi also claims that this argument is not relevant to the current analysis. “ARBs did not increase survival in any of the high-exposure trials that showed an excess in cancers. Therefore, competing outcomes, or ‘survival bias’ to be more specific, is not a possibility here,” he says.

George Bakris, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago Medicine, noted that while the current study shows a slight increase in cancer incidence, especially lung cancer, among those taking ARBs for more than 3 years, it “totally ignores the overwhelming cardiovascular risk reduction seen in the trials.”

“Moreover,” he adds, “the author notes that the findings were independent of ACE-inhibitors, but he can’t rule out smoking and age as factors, two major risk factors for cancer and lung cancer, specifically. Thus, as typical of these types of analyses, the associations are probably true/true unrelated or, at best, partially related.”

Dr. Bakris referred to the potentially carcinogenic nitrosamine and azido compounds found in several ARB formulations that have resulted in recalls.

“At any stage of drug synthesis throughout each product’s lifetime, these impurities may evolve if an amine reacts with a nitrosating agent coexisting under appropriate conditions,” he said. “Drug regulatory authorities worldwide have established stringent guidelines on nitrosamine contamination for all drug products. The studies noted in the author’s analysis were done well before these guidelines were implemented. Hence, many of the issues raised by the authors using trials from 10-20 years ago are not of significant concern.”

Still, the cardiology experts all agreed on one thing – that patients should continue to take ARBs as prescribed.  

Noting that worldwide authorities are now addressing the issue of possible carcinogen contamination, Dr. Bakris stressed that patients “should not panic and should not stop their meds.”

Dr. Nissen added: “What we don’t want is for patents who are taking ARBs to stop taking these medications – hypertension is a deadly disorder, and these drugs have proven cardiovascular benefits.”

Dr. Sipahi received no specific funding for this work. He reports receiving lecture honoraria from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sandoz, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Pfizer, Ranbaxy, Servier, and ARIS and served on advisory boards for Novartis, Sanofi, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer and I.E. Ulagay. The other commenters do not report any relevant disclosures.

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

The debate on whether the popular class of antihypertensive drugs, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), may be associated with an increased risk for cancer has been reopened with the publication of a new meta-analysis.

The analysis found an increasing risk for cancer, and specifically lung cancer, with increasing cumulative exposure to these drugs.

The findings are reported in a study published online in PLOS ONE.

The author of this new meta-analysis is Ilke Sipahi, MD, a cardiologist from Acibadem University Medical School, Istanbul, who previously raised this issue in an initial meta-analysis published in 2010.

“The new meta-analysis is important because it is the first study to investigate whether there is a dose response in the association between ARBs and cancer,” Dr. Sipahi told this news organization.

“I found a clear signal of increased risk of cancer as exposure to ARBs increased, and the association started to become significant when the maximum dose was taken for 3 years,” he added.

Dr. Sipahi explained that in the first meta-analysis published in Lancet Oncology, he and his colleagues reported an increased cancer risk with ARBs based on observations from high-exposure trials – those that included higher doses of ARBs with a long duration of follow-up.

Following this publication, an investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration refuted the risk, and a collaboration of ARB trial investigators also performed an analysis published in the Journal of Hypertension (2011. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e328344a7de), which again did not show an increased risk for cancer with use of ARBs.

Dr. Sipahi claims that those analyses by the FDA and the ARB Trialists Collaboration, which were all trial-level meta-analyses, diluted the “high exposure” data (including higher doses taken for longer periods of time) with a large amount of other data on much lower exposures (lower doses and/or shorter time periods).

“The overall risk would then inevitably become nonsignificant. These analyses also did not look at different exposure levels,” he says.

“For cancer, the degree of exposure is obviously very important. The risk associated with smoking 2 or 3 cigarettes a day for a year is very different from that of smoking 2 packs a day for 40 years. The same principle applies to taking a medication,” Dr. Sipahi asserts.

From these latest data, he estimates that 120 patients needed to be treated with the maximal daily dose of an ARB for 4.7 years for one excess cancer diagnosis, and 464 patients needed to be treated for one excess lung cancer.

“Given that at least 200 million individuals are being treated with an ARB globally, approximately 1.7 million excess cancers (and 430,000 lung cancers) in 4.6 years could be potentially caused by this class of drugs,” he suggests.

For the current analysis, Dr. Sipahi used trial-level data taken from the paper by the ARB Trialists Collaboration and investigated the effect of exposure to ARBs – including both the dose taken and the length of treatment – on risk for cancer. He performed metaregression analyses that he says has not been done before.

“I mathematically quantitated the degree of exposure in each trial. And when the degree of exposure was correlated with risk of cancer, there was a significant association.”

The new meta-analysis includes 15 randomized controlled trials. The two coprimary outcomes were the relationship between cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined and the relationship between cumulative exposure and risk for lung cancer.

In the trials, 74,021 patients were randomly assigned to an ARB, resulting in a total cumulative exposure of 172,389 person-years of exposure to daily high dose (or equivalent), and 61,197 patients were randomly assigned to control.

Results showed a highly significant correlation between the degree of cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined (slope = 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.11; P < .001) and also lung cancer (slope = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05-0.27; P = .003).

In trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 3 years of exposure to daily high dose, there was a statistically significant increase in risk for all cancers combined (risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19; P = .006).

There was also a statistically significant increase in risk for lung cancers in trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 2.5 years (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.44; P = .03).

In trials with lower cumulative exposure to ARBs, there was no increased risk either for all cancers combined or lung cancer.

Dr. Sipahi reports that the cumulative exposure-risk relationship with ARBs was independent of background angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor treatment or the type of control (placebo or nonplacebo control).

But he acknowledges that since this is a trial-level analysis, the effects of patient characteristics such as age and smoking status could not be examined because of lack of patient-level data.

Dr. Sipahi says he does not know the mechanism behind these findings, but he draws attention to the recent withdrawal of several thousand lots of ARB formulations because of the presence of potentially carcinogenic impurities that have been suggested to be a byproduct of ARB synthesis.

He also claims that unlike some other classes of antihypertensives, ARBs have not been shown to reduce the risk for MI, leading him to conclude that “other classes of antihypertensives with good safety and efficacy data (such as ACE-inhibitors, calcium-channel blockers or others) should become the preferred first-line agents in the treatment of hypertension.”

Dr. Sipahi wants the FDA to reinvestigate the issue of ARBs and cancer risk using individual patient data. “They already have the patient-level data from the trials. They should look at it more carefully and look at exposure levels and how they relate to cancer risk,” he said. “And the fact that there have been studies linking high ARB exposure levels to increased cancer risk should at least get a warning on the drug labels.”
 

A ‘clear increase’ in risk

Dr. Sipahi also points out that a link between ARBs and cancer has been found in another meta-analysis performed in 2013 by senior FDA analyst Thomas Marciniak, MD.

“Because he worked at the FDA, [Dr.] Marciniak had access to individual patent data. This is the best type of analysis and generally produces more accurate results than a trial-level meta-analysis,” Dr. Sipahi commented.

Dr. Marciniak’s analysis, which is available on the FDA website as part of another document, was not officially published elsewhere, and no further action has been taken on the issue.

Contacted by this news organization, Dr. Marciniak, who has now retired from the FDA, said he not only conducted a patient-level meta-analysis but also followed up adverse effects reported in the trials that could have been a symptom of cancer to establish further whether the patient was later diagnosed with cancer or not.

“I used every scrap of information sent in, including serious adverse event reports. I saw a clear increase in lung cancer risk with the ARBs,” Dr. Marciniak said. He did not, however, perform a dose-response relationship analysis.

Asked why his analysis and those from Dr. Sipahi reach different conclusions to those from the ARB Trialists Collaboration and the official FDA investigations, Dr. Marciniak said: “It may be that there were too many low-exposure trials that just washed out the difference. But trial data generally do not capture adverse events such as cancer, which takes a long time to develop, very well, and if you’re not really looking for it, you’re probably not going to find it.”

Dr. Marciniak said that Dr. Sipahi’s current findings are in line with his results. “Finding a dose response, to me, is extremely compelling, and I think the signal here is real,” he commented. “I think this new paper from Dr. Sipahi verifies what I found. I think the FDA should now release all individual patient data it has.”

Contacted for comment, an FDA spokesperson said, “Generally the FDA does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”

They added: “The FDA has ongoing assessment, surveillance, compliance, and pharmaceutical quality efforts across every product area, and we will continue to work with drug manufacturers to ensure safe, effective, and high-quality drugs for the American public. When we identify new and previously unrecognized risks to safety and quality, we react swiftly to resolve the problem, as we have done in responding to the recent findings of nitrosamines in certain medicines.”
 

Analysis ‘should be taken seriously’

Commenting on this new study, Steve Nissen, MD, a key figure in analyzing such complex data and who has himself uncovered problems with high-profile drugs in the past, says the current analysis should be taken seriously. 

Dr. Nissen, who was Dr. Sipahi’s senior during his post-doc position at the Cleveland Clinic, wrote an editorial accompanying Dr. Sipahi’s first paper and calling for urgent regulatory review of the evidence.

He says the new findings add to previous evidence suggesting a possible risk for cancer with ARBs.

“[Dr.] Sipahi is a capable researcher, and this analysis needs to be taken seriously, but it needs to be verified. It is not possible to draw a strong conclusion on this analysis, as it is not based on individual patient data, but I don’t think it should be ignored,” Dr. Nissen stated.

“I will say again what I said 12 years ago – that the regulatory agencies need to carefully review all their data in a very detailed way. The FDA and EMA have access to the individual patient data and are both very capable of doing the required analyses.”
 

Limitations of trial-level analysis

Asked to evaluate the statistics in the current paper, Andrew Althouse, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, and a clinical trial statistician, explained that the best way to do a thorough analysis of the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer would involve the use of patient-level data.

“As such data were not available to Dr. Sipahi, I believe he is doing as well as he can. But without full access to individual patient-level data from the respective trials, it is difficult to support any firm conclusions,” Dr. Althouse said in an interview.

He suggested that the meta-regression analyses used in the paper were unable to properly estimate the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer. 

“Taken at face value, the current analysis suggests that [in] trials with longer follow-up duration (and therefore greater cumulative exposure to ARB for the treatment group), the risk of developing cancer for patients in the ARB group versus the non-ARB group was progressively higher. But this study doesn’t take into account the actual amount of follow-up time for individual patients or potential differences in the amount of follow-up time between the two groups in each trial,” he noted.

Dr. Althouse says this raises the possibility of “competing risks” or the idea that if ARBs reduce cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular death, then there would be more patients remaining in that arm who could go on to develop cancer. “So a crude count of the number of cancer cases may look as though patients receiving ARBs are ‘more likely’ to develop cancer, but this is a mirage.”

He added: “When there are some patients dying during the study, the only way to tell whether the intervention actually increased the risk of other health-related complications is to have an analysis that properly accounts for each patient’s time-at-risk of the outcome. Unfortunately, properly analyzing this requires the use of patient-level data.”
 

Cardiologists skeptical?

Cardiology experts asked for thoughts on the new meta-analysis were also cautious to read too much into the findings.

Franz Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “Perhaps one would simply ignore this rambling, cherrypicking-based condemnation of ARBs if it were not for the powerful negative connotation of the word cancer. Thus, the meta-analysis of Dr. Sipahi purporting that ARBs could be increasing the development of cancers in a cumulative way is of concern to both physicians and patients.”

But, raising a similar point to Dr. Althouse about competing risks, Dr. Messerli said: “We have to consider that as one gets older, the cardiovascular disease state and cancer state will compete with each other for the outcome of death. The better that therapies protect against cardiovascular death, the more they will increase life expectancy and thus the risk of cancer.”

He also added that “in head-to-head comparisons with ACE inhibitors, ARBs showed similar efficacy in terms of death, CV mortality, MI, stroke, and end-stage kidney disease, so can we agree that the attempt of Dr. Sipahi to disparage ARBs as a class is much ado about nothing?”

Dr. Nissen, however, said he views the idea of competing risk as “a bit of a stretch” in this case. “Although ARBs are effective antihypertensive drugs, I would say there is very little evidence that they would prolong survival versus other antihypertensives.”

Dr. Sipahi also claims that this argument is not relevant to the current analysis. “ARBs did not increase survival in any of the high-exposure trials that showed an excess in cancers. Therefore, competing outcomes, or ‘survival bias’ to be more specific, is not a possibility here,” he says.

George Bakris, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago Medicine, noted that while the current study shows a slight increase in cancer incidence, especially lung cancer, among those taking ARBs for more than 3 years, it “totally ignores the overwhelming cardiovascular risk reduction seen in the trials.”

“Moreover,” he adds, “the author notes that the findings were independent of ACE-inhibitors, but he can’t rule out smoking and age as factors, two major risk factors for cancer and lung cancer, specifically. Thus, as typical of these types of analyses, the associations are probably true/true unrelated or, at best, partially related.”

Dr. Bakris referred to the potentially carcinogenic nitrosamine and azido compounds found in several ARB formulations that have resulted in recalls.

“At any stage of drug synthesis throughout each product’s lifetime, these impurities may evolve if an amine reacts with a nitrosating agent coexisting under appropriate conditions,” he said. “Drug regulatory authorities worldwide have established stringent guidelines on nitrosamine contamination for all drug products. The studies noted in the author’s analysis were done well before these guidelines were implemented. Hence, many of the issues raised by the authors using trials from 10-20 years ago are not of significant concern.”

Still, the cardiology experts all agreed on one thing – that patients should continue to take ARBs as prescribed.  

Noting that worldwide authorities are now addressing the issue of possible carcinogen contamination, Dr. Bakris stressed that patients “should not panic and should not stop their meds.”

Dr. Nissen added: “What we don’t want is for patents who are taking ARBs to stop taking these medications – hypertension is a deadly disorder, and these drugs have proven cardiovascular benefits.”

Dr. Sipahi received no specific funding for this work. He reports receiving lecture honoraria from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sandoz, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Pfizer, Ranbaxy, Servier, and ARIS and served on advisory boards for Novartis, Sanofi, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer and I.E. Ulagay. The other commenters do not report any relevant disclosures.

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

Ahead of its official release on March 18, the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is in the form of a textbook, is already drawing some criticism.

The American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5-TR (Text Revision) which is not a full revision, only includes one new condition, prolonged grief disorder.

It also includes symptom codes for suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury, clarifying modifications to criteria sets for more than 70 disorders, including autism spectrum disorder; changes in terminology for gender dysphoria; and a comprehensive review of the impact of racism and discrimination on the diagnosis and manifestations of mental disorders.

The Text Revision is a compilation of iterative changes that have been made online on a rolling basis since the DSM-5 was first published in 2013.

“The goal of the Text Revision was to allow a thorough revision of the text, not the criteria,” Paul Appelbaum, MD, chair of the APA’s DSM steering committee, told this news organization.

For the Text Revision, some 200 experts across a variety of APA working groups recommended changes to the text based on a comprehensive literature review, said Appelbaum, who is the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine and Law, and director of the division of law, ethics and psychiatry at Columbia University, New York.

However, there’s not a lot that’s new, in part, because there have been few therapeutic advances.
 

Money maker?

Allen Frances, MD, chair of the DSM-4 task force and professor and chair emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said the APA is publishing the Text Revision “just to make money. They’re very anxious to do anything that will increase sales and having a revision forces some people, especially in institutions, to buy the book, even though it may not have anything substantive to add to the original.”

Dr. Frances told this news organization that when the APA published the first DSM in the late 1970s, “it became an instantaneous best-seller, to everyone’s surprise.”

The APA would not comment on how many of the $170 (list price) volumes it sells or how much those sales contribute to its budget.

Dr. Appelbaum acknowledged, “at any point in time, the canonical version is the online version.” However, it’s clear from DSM-5 sales “that many people still value having a hard copy of the DSM available to them.”  
 

Prolonged grief: Timely or overkill?

Persistent complex bereavement disorder (PCBD) was listed as a “condition for further study” in DSM-5. After a 2019 workshop aimed at getting consensus for diagnosis criteria, the APA board approved the new prolonged grief disorder in October 2020, and the APA assembly approved the new disorder in November 2020. 

Given the 950,000 deaths from COVID-19 over the past 2 years, inclusion of prolonged grief disorder in the DSM-5 may arrive at just the right time.

The diagnostic criteria for PCBD include:

• The development of a persistent grief response (longer than a year for adults and 6 months for children and adolescents) characterized by one or both of the following symptoms, which have been present most days to a clinically significant degree, and have occurred nearly every day for at least the last month: intense yearning/longing for the deceased person; preoccupation with thoughts or memories of the deceased person.
• Since the death, at least three symptoms present most days to a clinically significant degree, and occurring nearly every day for at least the last month, including identity disruption, marked sense of disbelief about the death, avoidance of reminders that the person is dead, intense emotional pain related to the death, difficulty reintegrating into one’s relationships and activities after the death, emotional numbness, feeling that life is meaningless as a result of the death, and intense loneliness as a result of the death.
• The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
• The duration and severity of the bereavement reaction clearly exceed expected social, cultural, or religious norms for the individual’s culture and context.
• The symptoms are not better explained by another mental disorder, such as major depressive disorder (MDD) or PTSD, and are not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance or another medical condition.

Dr. Frances said he believes creating a new diagnosis pathologizes grief. In DSM-3 and DSM-4, an exception was made under the diagnosis of MDD for individuals who had recently lost a loved one. “We wanted to have at least an opportunity for people to grieve without being stigmatized, mislabeled, and overtreated with medication.”

DSM-5 removed the bereavement exclusion. After 2 weeks, people who are grieving and have particular symptoms could receive a diagnosis of MDD, said Dr. Frances. He believes the exclusion should have been broadened to cover anyone experiencing a major loss – such as a job loss or divorce. If someone is having prolonged symptoms that interfere with functioning, they should get an MDD diagnosis.

The new disorder “doesn’t solve anything, it just adds to the confusion and stigmatization, and it’s part of a kind of creeping medical imperialization of everyday life, where everything has to have a mental disorder label,” Dr. Frances said.

However, Dr. Appelbaum countered that “the criteria for prolonged grief disorder are constructed in such a way as to make every effort to exclude people who are going through a normal grieving process.”

“Part of the purpose of the data analyses was to ensure the criteria that were adopted would, in fact, effectively distinguish between what anybody goes through, say when someone close to you dies, and this unusual prolonged grieving process without end that affects a much smaller number of people but which really can be crippling for them,” he added.

The Text Revision adds new symptom codes for suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury, which appear in the chapter, “Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention,” said Dr. Appelbaum.

“Both suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury seem pretty persuasively to fall into that category – something a clinician would want to know about, pay attention to, and factor into treatment planning, although they are behaviors that cross many diagnostic categories,” he added.

Codes also provide a systematic way of ascertaining the incidence and prevalence of such behaviors, said Dr. Appelbaum.
 

Changes to gender terminology

The Text Revision also tweaks some terminology with respect to transgender individuals. The term “desired gender” is now “experienced gender”, the term “cross-sex medical procedure” is now “gender-affirming medical procedure”, and the terms “natal male/natal female” are now “individual assigned male/female at birth”.

Dr. Frances said that the existence of gender dysphoria as a diagnosis has been a matter of controversy ever since it was first included.

“The transgender community has had mixed feelings on whether there should be anything at all in the manual,” he said. On one hand is the argument that gender dysphoria should be removed because it’s not really a psychiatric issue.

“We seriously considered eliminating it altogether in DSM-4,” said Dr. Frances.

However, an argument in favor of keeping it was that if the diagnosis was removed, it would mean that people could not receive treatment. “There’s no right argument for this dilemma,” he said.

Dr. Frances, who has been a frequent critic of DSM-5, said he believes the manual continues to miss opportunities to tighten criteria for many diagnoses, including ADHD and autism spectrum disorder.

“There’s a consistent pattern of taking behaviors and symptoms of behaviors that are on the border with normality and expanding the definition of mental disorder and reducing the realm of normality,” he said.

That has consequences, Dr. Frances added. “When someone gets a diagnosis that they need to get, it’s the beginning of a much better future. When someone gets a diagnosis that’s a mislabel that they don’t need, it has all harms and no benefits. It’s stigmatizing, leads to too much treatment, the wrong treatment, and it’s much more harmful than helpful.”

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

Ahead of its official release on March 18, the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is in the form of a textbook, is already drawing some criticism.

The American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5-TR (Text Revision) which is not a full revision, only includes one new condition, prolonged grief disorder.

It also includes symptom codes for suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury, clarifying modifications to criteria sets for more than 70 disorders, including autism spectrum disorder; changes in terminology for gender dysphoria; and a comprehensive review of the impact of racism and discrimination on the diagnosis and manifestations of mental disorders.

The Text Revision is a compilation of iterative changes that have been made online on a rolling basis since the DSM-5 was first published in 2013.

“The goal of the Text Revision was to allow a thorough revision of the text, not the criteria,” Paul Appelbaum, MD, chair of the APA’s DSM steering committee, told this news organization.

For the Text Revision, some 200 experts across a variety of APA working groups recommended changes to the text based on a comprehensive literature review, said Appelbaum, who is the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine and Law, and director of the division of law, ethics and psychiatry at Columbia University, New York.

However, there’s not a lot that’s new, in part, because there have been few therapeutic advances.
 

Money maker?

Allen Frances, MD, chair of the DSM-4 task force and professor and chair emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said the APA is publishing the Text Revision “just to make money. They’re very anxious to do anything that will increase sales and having a revision forces some people, especially in institutions, to buy the book, even though it may not have anything substantive to add to the original.”

Dr. Frances told this news organization that when the APA published the first DSM in the late 1970s, “it became an instantaneous best-seller, to everyone’s surprise.”

The APA would not comment on how many of the $170 (list price) volumes it sells or how much those sales contribute to its budget.

Dr. Appelbaum acknowledged, “at any point in time, the canonical version is the online version.” However, it’s clear from DSM-5 sales “that many people still value having a hard copy of the DSM available to them.”  
 

Prolonged grief: Timely or overkill?

Persistent complex bereavement disorder (PCBD) was listed as a “condition for further study” in DSM-5. After a 2019 workshop aimed at getting consensus for diagnosis criteria, the APA board approved the new prolonged grief disorder in October 2020, and the APA assembly approved the new disorder in November 2020. 

Given the 950,000 deaths from COVID-19 over the past 2 years, inclusion of prolonged grief disorder in the DSM-5 may arrive at just the right time.

The diagnostic criteria for PCBD include:

• The development of a persistent grief response (longer than a year for adults and 6 months for children and adolescents) characterized by one or both of the following symptoms, which have been present most days to a clinically significant degree, and have occurred nearly every day for at least the last month: intense yearning/longing for the deceased person; preoccupation with thoughts or memories of the deceased person.
• Since the death, at least three symptoms present most days to a clinically significant degree, and occurring nearly every day for at least the last month, including identity disruption, marked sense of disbelief about the death, avoidance of reminders that the person is dead, intense emotional pain related to the death, difficulty reintegrating into one’s relationships and activities after the death, emotional numbness, feeling that life is meaningless as a result of the death, and intense loneliness as a result of the death.
• The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
• The duration and severity of the bereavement reaction clearly exceed expected social, cultural, or religious norms for the individual’s culture and context.
• The symptoms are not better explained by another mental disorder, such as major depressive disorder (MDD) or PTSD, and are not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance or another medical condition.

Dr. Frances said he believes creating a new diagnosis pathologizes grief. In DSM-3 and DSM-4, an exception was made under the diagnosis of MDD for individuals who had recently lost a loved one. “We wanted to have at least an opportunity for people to grieve without being stigmatized, mislabeled, and overtreated with medication.”

DSM-5 removed the bereavement exclusion. After 2 weeks, people who are grieving and have particular symptoms could receive a diagnosis of MDD, said Dr. Frances. He believes the exclusion should have been broadened to cover anyone experiencing a major loss – such as a job loss or divorce. If someone is having prolonged symptoms that interfere with functioning, they should get an MDD diagnosis.

The new disorder “doesn’t solve anything, it just adds to the confusion and stigmatization, and it’s part of a kind of creeping medical imperialization of everyday life, where everything has to have a mental disorder label,” Dr. Frances said.

However, Dr. Appelbaum countered that “the criteria for prolonged grief disorder are constructed in such a way as to make every effort to exclude people who are going through a normal grieving process.”

“Part of the purpose of the data analyses was to ensure the criteria that were adopted would, in fact, effectively distinguish between what anybody goes through, say when someone close to you dies, and this unusual prolonged grieving process without end that affects a much smaller number of people but which really can be crippling for them,” he added.

The Text Revision adds new symptom codes for suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury, which appear in the chapter, “Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention,” said Dr. Appelbaum.

“Both suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury seem pretty persuasively to fall into that category – something a clinician would want to know about, pay attention to, and factor into treatment planning, although they are behaviors that cross many diagnostic categories,” he added.

Codes also provide a systematic way of ascertaining the incidence and prevalence of such behaviors, said Dr. Appelbaum.
 

Changes to gender terminology

The Text Revision also tweaks some terminology with respect to transgender individuals. The term “desired gender” is now “experienced gender”, the term “cross-sex medical procedure” is now “gender-affirming medical procedure”, and the terms “natal male/natal female” are now “individual assigned male/female at birth”.

Dr. Frances said that the existence of gender dysphoria as a diagnosis has been a matter of controversy ever since it was first included.

“The transgender community has had mixed feelings on whether there should be anything at all in the manual,” he said. On one hand is the argument that gender dysphoria should be removed because it’s not really a psychiatric issue.

“We seriously considered eliminating it altogether in DSM-4,” said Dr. Frances.

However, an argument in favor of keeping it was that if the diagnosis was removed, it would mean that people could not receive treatment. “There’s no right argument for this dilemma,” he said.

Dr. Frances, who has been a frequent critic of DSM-5, said he believes the manual continues to miss opportunities to tighten criteria for many diagnoses, including ADHD and autism spectrum disorder.

“There’s a consistent pattern of taking behaviors and symptoms of behaviors that are on the border with normality and expanding the definition of mental disorder and reducing the realm of normality,” he said.

That has consequences, Dr. Frances added. “When someone gets a diagnosis that they need to get, it’s the beginning of a much better future. When someone gets a diagnosis that’s a mislabel that they don’t need, it has all harms and no benefits. It’s stigmatizing, leads to too much treatment, the wrong treatment, and it’s much more harmful than helpful.”

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

Ahead of its official release on March 18, the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is in the form of a textbook, is already drawing some criticism.

The American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5-TR (Text Revision) which is not a full revision, only includes one new condition, prolonged grief disorder.

It also includes symptom codes for suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury, clarifying modifications to criteria sets for more than 70 disorders, including autism spectrum disorder; changes in terminology for gender dysphoria; and a comprehensive review of the impact of racism and discrimination on the diagnosis and manifestations of mental disorders.

The Text Revision is a compilation of iterative changes that have been made online on a rolling basis since the DSM-5 was first published in 2013.

“The goal of the Text Revision was to allow a thorough revision of the text, not the criteria,” Paul Appelbaum, MD, chair of the APA’s DSM steering committee, told this news organization.

For the Text Revision, some 200 experts across a variety of APA working groups recommended changes to the text based on a comprehensive literature review, said Appelbaum, who is the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine and Law, and director of the division of law, ethics and psychiatry at Columbia University, New York.

However, there’s not a lot that’s new, in part, because there have been few therapeutic advances.
 

Money maker?

Allen Frances, MD, chair of the DSM-4 task force and professor and chair emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said the APA is publishing the Text Revision “just to make money. They’re very anxious to do anything that will increase sales and having a revision forces some people, especially in institutions, to buy the book, even though it may not have anything substantive to add to the original.”

Dr. Frances told this news organization that when the APA published the first DSM in the late 1970s, “it became an instantaneous best-seller, to everyone’s surprise.”

The APA would not comment on how many of the $170 (list price) volumes it sells or how much those sales contribute to its budget.

Dr. Appelbaum acknowledged, “at any point in time, the canonical version is the online version.” However, it’s clear from DSM-5 sales “that many people still value having a hard copy of the DSM available to them.”  
 

Prolonged grief: Timely or overkill?

Persistent complex bereavement disorder (PCBD) was listed as a “condition for further study” in DSM-5. After a 2019 workshop aimed at getting consensus for diagnosis criteria, the APA board approved the new prolonged grief disorder in October 2020, and the APA assembly approved the new disorder in November 2020. 

Given the 950,000 deaths from COVID-19 over the past 2 years, inclusion of prolonged grief disorder in the DSM-5 may arrive at just the right time.

The diagnostic criteria for PCBD include:

• The development of a persistent grief response (longer than a year for adults and 6 months for children and adolescents) characterized by one or both of the following symptoms, which have been present most days to a clinically significant degree, and have occurred nearly every day for at least the last month: intense yearning/longing for the deceased person; preoccupation with thoughts or memories of the deceased person.
• Since the death, at least three symptoms present most days to a clinically significant degree, and occurring nearly every day for at least the last month, including identity disruption, marked sense of disbelief about the death, avoidance of reminders that the person is dead, intense emotional pain related to the death, difficulty reintegrating into one’s relationships and activities after the death, emotional numbness, feeling that life is meaningless as a result of the death, and intense loneliness as a result of the death.
• The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
• The duration and severity of the bereavement reaction clearly exceed expected social, cultural, or religious norms for the individual’s culture and context.
• The symptoms are not better explained by another mental disorder, such as major depressive disorder (MDD) or PTSD, and are not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance or another medical condition.

Dr. Frances said he believes creating a new diagnosis pathologizes grief. In DSM-3 and DSM-4, an exception was made under the diagnosis of MDD for individuals who had recently lost a loved one. “We wanted to have at least an opportunity for people to grieve without being stigmatized, mislabeled, and overtreated with medication.”

DSM-5 removed the bereavement exclusion. After 2 weeks, people who are grieving and have particular symptoms could receive a diagnosis of MDD, said Dr. Frances. He believes the exclusion should have been broadened to cover anyone experiencing a major loss – such as a job loss or divorce. If someone is having prolonged symptoms that interfere with functioning, they should get an MDD diagnosis.

The new disorder “doesn’t solve anything, it just adds to the confusion and stigmatization, and it’s part of a kind of creeping medical imperialization of everyday life, where everything has to have a mental disorder label,” Dr. Frances said.

However, Dr. Appelbaum countered that “the criteria for prolonged grief disorder are constructed in such a way as to make every effort to exclude people who are going through a normal grieving process.”

“Part of the purpose of the data analyses was to ensure the criteria that were adopted would, in fact, effectively distinguish between what anybody goes through, say when someone close to you dies, and this unusual prolonged grieving process without end that affects a much smaller number of people but which really can be crippling for them,” he added.

The Text Revision adds new symptom codes for suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury, which appear in the chapter, “Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention,” said Dr. Appelbaum.

“Both suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury seem pretty persuasively to fall into that category – something a clinician would want to know about, pay attention to, and factor into treatment planning, although they are behaviors that cross many diagnostic categories,” he added.

Codes also provide a systematic way of ascertaining the incidence and prevalence of such behaviors, said Dr. Appelbaum.
 

Changes to gender terminology

The Text Revision also tweaks some terminology with respect to transgender individuals. The term “desired gender” is now “experienced gender”, the term “cross-sex medical procedure” is now “gender-affirming medical procedure”, and the terms “natal male/natal female” are now “individual assigned male/female at birth”.

Dr. Frances said that the existence of gender dysphoria as a diagnosis has been a matter of controversy ever since it was first included.

“The transgender community has had mixed feelings on whether there should be anything at all in the manual,” he said. On one hand is the argument that gender dysphoria should be removed because it’s not really a psychiatric issue.

“We seriously considered eliminating it altogether in DSM-4,” said Dr. Frances.

However, an argument in favor of keeping it was that if the diagnosis was removed, it would mean that people could not receive treatment. “There’s no right argument for this dilemma,” he said.

Dr. Frances, who has been a frequent critic of DSM-5, said he believes the manual continues to miss opportunities to tighten criteria for many diagnoses, including ADHD and autism spectrum disorder.

“There’s a consistent pattern of taking behaviors and symptoms of behaviors that are on the border with normality and expanding the definition of mental disorder and reducing the realm of normality,” he said.

That has consequences, Dr. Frances added. “When someone gets a diagnosis that they need to get, it’s the beginning of a much better future. When someone gets a diagnosis that’s a mislabel that they don’t need, it has all harms and no benefits. It’s stigmatizing, leads to too much treatment, the wrong treatment, and it’s much more harmful than helpful.”

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

Getting a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine did not affect pregnancy rates for women trying to conceive with in vitro fertilization or ovarian response to treatment, findings of a new study indicate.

The study was led by Sarit Avraham, MD, with the IVF unit, department of obstetrics and gynecology, Shamir Medical Center in Tzrifi, Israel. The findings were published online in Fertility and Sterility in a preproof version.

“Women should be vaccinated for COVID-19 prior to attempting to conceive via IVF treatments, given the higher risk of severe illness in pregnant women,” the authors wrote.

Doubts arose from “the theoretical concept of the supposed similarity between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the syncytin protein that is speculated to take part in the fertilization process and the formation of the placenta,” the authors wrote.

Some then assumed that the COVID vaccine might kick off an immune response that could affect implantation and pregnancy. But this study and others before it found otherwise.

Researchers included 200 vaccinated women trying to conceive with IVF treatments in the retrospective study, and compared them with 200 unvaccinated patients of similar age (average age in both groups, 36 years) who were not previously infected with COVID-19. All the women were undergoing IVF from January to April 2021 and all the vaccinated women completed two doses of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine at least 2 weeks before ovarian stimulation.

Researchers compared the average number of oocytes retrieved and clinical pregnancy rates between the two groups.
 

No difference between groups

Two hundred patients underwent oocyte retrieval 14-68 days after receiving a COVID shot; there was no significant difference by vaccination status in the number retrieved per cycle (10.63 in the vaccinated group vs. 10.72 in the unvaccinated group; P = .93).

There was also no difference in the clinical pregnancy rates after fresh embryo transfers. The rate among 128 vaccinated patients was 32.8% versus 33.1% in the 133 unvaccinated patients (P = .96), with 42 and 44 clinical pregnancies, respectively.

A total of 113 patients (66 in the study group and 47 in the controls) underwent freeze-all cycles to preserve fertility and fertilization rates were similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated (55.43% vaccinated vs. 54.29% unvaccinated; P = .73). The average number of cryopreserved embryos was 3.59 (vaccinated) versus 3.28 (unvaccinated) (P = .80).

In a subanalysis of outcomes by age, researchers found vaccination status had no effect on number of oocytes or pregnancy rates in the 39-and-older group. That’s important because it shows the vaccine did not affect outcomes even in a population with reduced ovarian reserves, the authors wrote.

The authors noted one of the study’s limitations is that it didn’t include information about vaccination or past infection status of the male partners.
 

Question should be put to rest

Sarah Cross, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said the study is the biggest she’s seen that concludes COVID vaccinations are safe and highly encouraged for women before trying to conceive, but other smaller studies have come to the same conclusion.

She pointed to research including a study from 2021 with similar findings that concluded: “Physicians and public health personnel can counsel women of reproductive age that neither previous illness with COVID-19 nor antibodies produced from vaccination to COVID-19 will cause sterility.”

She said she thinks the question of whether COVID shots are safe with IVF has been answered and the results of the latest study add proof to counter misinformation around the issue.

“The COVID-19 vaccine does not affect fertility,” she said. “I don’t know how many more [studies] we need.”

The harm is in not getting vaccinated, she said. Pregnancy significantly increases a woman’s chance of getting severe COVID, the need for hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and risk of death.

“I personally have never had a hospitalized patient who’s been vaccinated,” Dr. Cross said. “The worst thing for the fetus is to have a critically ill mother.”

Dr. Cross, whose high-risk patients include those seeking counseling before IVF, added: “I would counsel all of them that they should absolutely get vaccinated prior to pregnancy, when they’re pregnant, whenever it is, as soon as they possibly can.”

The study authors and Dr. Cross report no relevant financial relationships.

Getting a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine did not affect pregnancy rates for women trying to conceive with in vitro fertilization or ovarian response to treatment, findings of a new study indicate.

The study was led by Sarit Avraham, MD, with the IVF unit, department of obstetrics and gynecology, Shamir Medical Center in Tzrifi, Israel. The findings were published online in Fertility and Sterility in a preproof version.

“Women should be vaccinated for COVID-19 prior to attempting to conceive via IVF treatments, given the higher risk of severe illness in pregnant women,” the authors wrote.

Doubts arose from “the theoretical concept of the supposed similarity between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the syncytin protein that is speculated to take part in the fertilization process and the formation of the placenta,” the authors wrote.

Some then assumed that the COVID vaccine might kick off an immune response that could affect implantation and pregnancy. But this study and others before it found otherwise.

Researchers included 200 vaccinated women trying to conceive with IVF treatments in the retrospective study, and compared them with 200 unvaccinated patients of similar age (average age in both groups, 36 years) who were not previously infected with COVID-19. All the women were undergoing IVF from January to April 2021 and all the vaccinated women completed two doses of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine at least 2 weeks before ovarian stimulation.

Researchers compared the average number of oocytes retrieved and clinical pregnancy rates between the two groups.
 

No difference between groups

Two hundred patients underwent oocyte retrieval 14-68 days after receiving a COVID shot; there was no significant difference by vaccination status in the number retrieved per cycle (10.63 in the vaccinated group vs. 10.72 in the unvaccinated group; P = .93).

There was also no difference in the clinical pregnancy rates after fresh embryo transfers. The rate among 128 vaccinated patients was 32.8% versus 33.1% in the 133 unvaccinated patients (P = .96), with 42 and 44 clinical pregnancies, respectively.

A total of 113 patients (66 in the study group and 47 in the controls) underwent freeze-all cycles to preserve fertility and fertilization rates were similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated (55.43% vaccinated vs. 54.29% unvaccinated; P = .73). The average number of cryopreserved embryos was 3.59 (vaccinated) versus 3.28 (unvaccinated) (P = .80).

In a subanalysis of outcomes by age, researchers found vaccination status had no effect on number of oocytes or pregnancy rates in the 39-and-older group. That’s important because it shows the vaccine did not affect outcomes even in a population with reduced ovarian reserves, the authors wrote.

The authors noted one of the study’s limitations is that it didn’t include information about vaccination or past infection status of the male partners.
 

Question should be put to rest

Sarah Cross, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said the study is the biggest she’s seen that concludes COVID vaccinations are safe and highly encouraged for women before trying to conceive, but other smaller studies have come to the same conclusion.

She pointed to research including a study from 2021 with similar findings that concluded: “Physicians and public health personnel can counsel women of reproductive age that neither previous illness with COVID-19 nor antibodies produced from vaccination to COVID-19 will cause sterility.”

She said she thinks the question of whether COVID shots are safe with IVF has been answered and the results of the latest study add proof to counter misinformation around the issue.

“The COVID-19 vaccine does not affect fertility,” she said. “I don’t know how many more [studies] we need.”

The harm is in not getting vaccinated, she said. Pregnancy significantly increases a woman’s chance of getting severe COVID, the need for hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and risk of death.

“I personally have never had a hospitalized patient who’s been vaccinated,” Dr. Cross said. “The worst thing for the fetus is to have a critically ill mother.”

Dr. Cross, whose high-risk patients include those seeking counseling before IVF, added: “I would counsel all of them that they should absolutely get vaccinated prior to pregnancy, when they’re pregnant, whenever it is, as soon as they possibly can.”

The study authors and Dr. Cross report no relevant financial relationships.

Getting a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine did not affect pregnancy rates for women trying to conceive with in vitro fertilization or ovarian response to treatment, findings of a new study indicate.

The study was led by Sarit Avraham, MD, with the IVF unit, department of obstetrics and gynecology, Shamir Medical Center in Tzrifi, Israel. The findings were published online in Fertility and Sterility in a preproof version.

“Women should be vaccinated for COVID-19 prior to attempting to conceive via IVF treatments, given the higher risk of severe illness in pregnant women,” the authors wrote.

Doubts arose from “the theoretical concept of the supposed similarity between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the syncytin protein that is speculated to take part in the fertilization process and the formation of the placenta,” the authors wrote.

Some then assumed that the COVID vaccine might kick off an immune response that could affect implantation and pregnancy. But this study and others before it found otherwise.

Researchers included 200 vaccinated women trying to conceive with IVF treatments in the retrospective study, and compared them with 200 unvaccinated patients of similar age (average age in both groups, 36 years) who were not previously infected with COVID-19. All the women were undergoing IVF from January to April 2021 and all the vaccinated women completed two doses of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine at least 2 weeks before ovarian stimulation.

Researchers compared the average number of oocytes retrieved and clinical pregnancy rates between the two groups.
 

No difference between groups

Two hundred patients underwent oocyte retrieval 14-68 days after receiving a COVID shot; there was no significant difference by vaccination status in the number retrieved per cycle (10.63 in the vaccinated group vs. 10.72 in the unvaccinated group; P = .93).

There was also no difference in the clinical pregnancy rates after fresh embryo transfers. The rate among 128 vaccinated patients was 32.8% versus 33.1% in the 133 unvaccinated patients (P = .96), with 42 and 44 clinical pregnancies, respectively.

A total of 113 patients (66 in the study group and 47 in the controls) underwent freeze-all cycles to preserve fertility and fertilization rates were similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated (55.43% vaccinated vs. 54.29% unvaccinated; P = .73). The average number of cryopreserved embryos was 3.59 (vaccinated) versus 3.28 (unvaccinated) (P = .80).

In a subanalysis of outcomes by age, researchers found vaccination status had no effect on number of oocytes or pregnancy rates in the 39-and-older group. That’s important because it shows the vaccine did not affect outcomes even in a population with reduced ovarian reserves, the authors wrote.

The authors noted one of the study’s limitations is that it didn’t include information about vaccination or past infection status of the male partners.
 

Question should be put to rest

Sarah Cross, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said the study is the biggest she’s seen that concludes COVID vaccinations are safe and highly encouraged for women before trying to conceive, but other smaller studies have come to the same conclusion.

She pointed to research including a study from 2021 with similar findings that concluded: “Physicians and public health personnel can counsel women of reproductive age that neither previous illness with COVID-19 nor antibodies produced from vaccination to COVID-19 will cause sterility.”

She said she thinks the question of whether COVID shots are safe with IVF has been answered and the results of the latest study add proof to counter misinformation around the issue.

“The COVID-19 vaccine does not affect fertility,” she said. “I don’t know how many more [studies] we need.”

The harm is in not getting vaccinated, she said. Pregnancy significantly increases a woman’s chance of getting severe COVID, the need for hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and risk of death.

“I personally have never had a hospitalized patient who’s been vaccinated,” Dr. Cross said. “The worst thing for the fetus is to have a critically ill mother.”

Dr. Cross, whose high-risk patients include those seeking counseling before IVF, added: “I would counsel all of them that they should absolutely get vaccinated prior to pregnancy, when they’re pregnant, whenever it is, as soon as they possibly can.”

The study authors and Dr. Cross report no relevant financial relationships.

A single injection of the experimental agent nirsevimab ahead of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) season protects healthy infants from lower respiratory tract infections associated with the pathogen, according to the results of a phase 3 study.

A previously published trial showed that a single dose of nirsevimab was effective in preterm infants. The ability to protect all babies from RSV, which causes bronchiolitis and pneumonia and is a leading cause of hospitalization for this age group, “would be a paradigm shift in the approach to this disease,” William Muller, MD, PhD, of the Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and a coauthor of the study, said in a statement.

The primary endpoint of the study was medically attended lower respiratory tract infections linked to RSV. The single injection of nirsevimab was associated with a 74.5% reduction in such infections (P < .001), according to Dr. Muller’s group, who published their findings March 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Nirsevimab, a monoclonal antibody to the RSV fusion protein being developed by AstraZeneca and Sanofi, has an extended half-life, which may allow one dose to confer protection throughout a season. The only approved option to prevent RSV, palivizumab (Synagis), is used for high-risk infants, and five injections are needed to cover a viral season.
 

Nearly 1,500 infants in more than 20 countries studied

To assess the effectiveness of nirsevimab in late-preterm and term infants, investigators at 160 sites randomly assigned 1,490 babies born at a gestational age of at least 35 weeks to receive an intramuscular injection of nirsevimab or placebo.

During the 150 days after injection, medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infections occurred in 12 of 994 infants who received nirsevimab, compared with 25 of 496 babies who received placebo (1.2% vs. 5%).

Six of 994 infants who received nirsevimab were hospitalized for RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infections, compared with 8 of 496 infants in the placebo group (0.6% vs. 1.6%; P = .07). The proportion of children hospitalized for any respiratory illness as a result of RSV was 0.9% among those who received nirsevimab, compared with 2.2% among those who received placebo.

Serious adverse events occurred in 6.8% of the nirsevimab group and 7.3% of the placebo group. None of these events, including three deaths in the nirsevimab group, was considered related to nirsevimab or placebo, according to the researchers. One infant who received nirsevimab had a generalized macular rash without systemic features that did not require treatment and resolved in 20 days, they said.

Antidrug antibodies were detected in 6.1% of the nirsevimab group and in 1.1% of the placebo group. These antidrug antibodies tended to develop later and did not affect nirsevimab pharmacokinetics during the RSV season, the researchers reported. How they might affect subsequent doses of nirsevimab is not known, they added.

In a separate report in the journal, researcher Joseph Domachowske, MD, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York, and colleagues described safety results from an ongoing study of nirsevimab that includes infants with congenital heart disease, chronic lung disease, and prematurity.

In this trial, infants received nirsevimab or palivizumab, and the treatments appeared to have similar safety profiles, the authors reported.

Other approaches to RSV protection include passive antibodies acquired from maternal vaccination in pregnancy and active vaccination of infants.

The publication follows news last month that GlaxoSmithKline is pausing a maternal RSV vaccine trial, which “had the same goal of protecting babies against severe RSV infection,” said Louis Bont, MD, PhD, with University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.

RSV infection is one of the deadliest diseases during infancy, and the nirsevimab trial, conducted in more than 20 countries, is “gamechanging,” Dr. Bont told this news organization. Still, researchers will need to monitor for RSV resistance to this treatment, he said.

Whether nirsevimab prevents the development of reactive airway disease and asthma is another open question, he said.

“Finally, we need to keep in mind that RSV mortality is almost limited to the developing world, and it is unlikely that this novel drug will become available to these countries in the coming years,” Dr. Bont said. “Nevertheless, nirsevimab has the potential to seriously decrease the annual overwhelming number of RSV infected babies.”

Nirsevimab may have advantages in low- and middle-income countries, including its potential to be incorporated into established immunization programs and to be given seasonally, said Amy Sarah Ginsburg, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle. “However, cost remains a significant factor, as does susceptibility to pathogen escape,” she said.

MedImmune/AstraZeneca and Sanofi funded the nirsevimab studies. UMC Utrecht has received research grants and fees for advisory work from AstraZeneca for RSV-related work by Bont.

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

A single injection of the experimental agent nirsevimab ahead of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) season protects healthy infants from lower respiratory tract infections associated with the pathogen, according to the results of a phase 3 study.

A previously published trial showed that a single dose of nirsevimab was effective in preterm infants. The ability to protect all babies from RSV, which causes bronchiolitis and pneumonia and is a leading cause of hospitalization for this age group, “would be a paradigm shift in the approach to this disease,” William Muller, MD, PhD, of the Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and a coauthor of the study, said in a statement.

The primary endpoint of the study was medically attended lower respiratory tract infections linked to RSV. The single injection of nirsevimab was associated with a 74.5% reduction in such infections (P < .001), according to Dr. Muller’s group, who published their findings March 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Nirsevimab, a monoclonal antibody to the RSV fusion protein being developed by AstraZeneca and Sanofi, has an extended half-life, which may allow one dose to confer protection throughout a season. The only approved option to prevent RSV, palivizumab (Synagis), is used for high-risk infants, and five injections are needed to cover a viral season.
 

Nearly 1,500 infants in more than 20 countries studied

To assess the effectiveness of nirsevimab in late-preterm and term infants, investigators at 160 sites randomly assigned 1,490 babies born at a gestational age of at least 35 weeks to receive an intramuscular injection of nirsevimab or placebo.

During the 150 days after injection, medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infections occurred in 12 of 994 infants who received nirsevimab, compared with 25 of 496 babies who received placebo (1.2% vs. 5%).

Six of 994 infants who received nirsevimab were hospitalized for RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infections, compared with 8 of 496 infants in the placebo group (0.6% vs. 1.6%; P = .07). The proportion of children hospitalized for any respiratory illness as a result of RSV was 0.9% among those who received nirsevimab, compared with 2.2% among those who received placebo.

Serious adverse events occurred in 6.8% of the nirsevimab group and 7.3% of the placebo group. None of these events, including three deaths in the nirsevimab group, was considered related to nirsevimab or placebo, according to the researchers. One infant who received nirsevimab had a generalized macular rash without systemic features that did not require treatment and resolved in 20 days, they said.

Antidrug antibodies were detected in 6.1% of the nirsevimab group and in 1.1% of the placebo group. These antidrug antibodies tended to develop later and did not affect nirsevimab pharmacokinetics during the RSV season, the researchers reported. How they might affect subsequent doses of nirsevimab is not known, they added.

In a separate report in the journal, researcher Joseph Domachowske, MD, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York, and colleagues described safety results from an ongoing study of nirsevimab that includes infants with congenital heart disease, chronic lung disease, and prematurity.

In this trial, infants received nirsevimab or palivizumab, and the treatments appeared to have similar safety profiles, the authors reported.

Other approaches to RSV protection include passive antibodies acquired from maternal vaccination in pregnancy and active vaccination of infants.

The publication follows news last month that GlaxoSmithKline is pausing a maternal RSV vaccine trial, which “had the same goal of protecting babies against severe RSV infection,” said Louis Bont, MD, PhD, with University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.

RSV infection is one of the deadliest diseases during infancy, and the nirsevimab trial, conducted in more than 20 countries, is “gamechanging,” Dr. Bont told this news organization. Still, researchers will need to monitor for RSV resistance to this treatment, he said.

Whether nirsevimab prevents the development of reactive airway disease and asthma is another open question, he said.

“Finally, we need to keep in mind that RSV mortality is almost limited to the developing world, and it is unlikely that this novel drug will become available to these countries in the coming years,” Dr. Bont said. “Nevertheless, nirsevimab has the potential to seriously decrease the annual overwhelming number of RSV infected babies.”

Nirsevimab may have advantages in low- and middle-income countries, including its potential to be incorporated into established immunization programs and to be given seasonally, said Amy Sarah Ginsburg, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle. “However, cost remains a significant factor, as does susceptibility to pathogen escape,” she said.

MedImmune/AstraZeneca and Sanofi funded the nirsevimab studies. UMC Utrecht has received research grants and fees for advisory work from AstraZeneca for RSV-related work by Bont.

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

A single injection of the experimental agent nirsevimab ahead of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) season protects healthy infants from lower respiratory tract infections associated with the pathogen, according to the results of a phase 3 study.

A previously published trial showed that a single dose of nirsevimab was effective in preterm infants. The ability to protect all babies from RSV, which causes bronchiolitis and pneumonia and is a leading cause of hospitalization for this age group, “would be a paradigm shift in the approach to this disease,” William Muller, MD, PhD, of the Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and a coauthor of the study, said in a statement.

The primary endpoint of the study was medically attended lower respiratory tract infections linked to RSV. The single injection of nirsevimab was associated with a 74.5% reduction in such infections (P < .001), according to Dr. Muller’s group, who published their findings March 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Nirsevimab, a monoclonal antibody to the RSV fusion protein being developed by AstraZeneca and Sanofi, has an extended half-life, which may allow one dose to confer protection throughout a season. The only approved option to prevent RSV, palivizumab (Synagis), is used for high-risk infants, and five injections are needed to cover a viral season.
 

Nearly 1,500 infants in more than 20 countries studied

To assess the effectiveness of nirsevimab in late-preterm and term infants, investigators at 160 sites randomly assigned 1,490 babies born at a gestational age of at least 35 weeks to receive an intramuscular injection of nirsevimab or placebo.

During the 150 days after injection, medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infections occurred in 12 of 994 infants who received nirsevimab, compared with 25 of 496 babies who received placebo (1.2% vs. 5%).

Six of 994 infants who received nirsevimab were hospitalized for RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infections, compared with 8 of 496 infants in the placebo group (0.6% vs. 1.6%; P = .07). The proportion of children hospitalized for any respiratory illness as a result of RSV was 0.9% among those who received nirsevimab, compared with 2.2% among those who received placebo.

Serious adverse events occurred in 6.8% of the nirsevimab group and 7.3% of the placebo group. None of these events, including three deaths in the nirsevimab group, was considered related to nirsevimab or placebo, according to the researchers. One infant who received nirsevimab had a generalized macular rash without systemic features that did not require treatment and resolved in 20 days, they said.

Antidrug antibodies were detected in 6.1% of the nirsevimab group and in 1.1% of the placebo group. These antidrug antibodies tended to develop later and did not affect nirsevimab pharmacokinetics during the RSV season, the researchers reported. How they might affect subsequent doses of nirsevimab is not known, they added.

In a separate report in the journal, researcher Joseph Domachowske, MD, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York, and colleagues described safety results from an ongoing study of nirsevimab that includes infants with congenital heart disease, chronic lung disease, and prematurity.

In this trial, infants received nirsevimab or palivizumab, and the treatments appeared to have similar safety profiles, the authors reported.

Other approaches to RSV protection include passive antibodies acquired from maternal vaccination in pregnancy and active vaccination of infants.

The publication follows news last month that GlaxoSmithKline is pausing a maternal RSV vaccine trial, which “had the same goal of protecting babies against severe RSV infection,” said Louis Bont, MD, PhD, with University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.

RSV infection is one of the deadliest diseases during infancy, and the nirsevimab trial, conducted in more than 20 countries, is “gamechanging,” Dr. Bont told this news organization. Still, researchers will need to monitor for RSV resistance to this treatment, he said.

Whether nirsevimab prevents the development of reactive airway disease and asthma is another open question, he said.

“Finally, we need to keep in mind that RSV mortality is almost limited to the developing world, and it is unlikely that this novel drug will become available to these countries in the coming years,” Dr. Bont said. “Nevertheless, nirsevimab has the potential to seriously decrease the annual overwhelming number of RSV infected babies.”

Nirsevimab may have advantages in low- and middle-income countries, including its potential to be incorporated into established immunization programs and to be given seasonally, said Amy Sarah Ginsburg, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle. “However, cost remains a significant factor, as does susceptibility to pathogen escape,” she said.

MedImmune/AstraZeneca and Sanofi funded the nirsevimab studies. UMC Utrecht has received research grants and fees for advisory work from AstraZeneca for RSV-related work by Bont.

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

Many emergency departments are currently unable to provide care for geriatric patients that meets best practices and guidelines recommended by several major medical organizations, but a panel discussion in 2021 at the American Academy of Emergency Medicine’s Scientific Assembly identified three areas in which realistic improvements might be achieved.

In an article published online in the Journal of Emergency Medicine, Richard D. Shih, MD, of Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, and colleagues synthesized the presentation and discussion of an expert panel on the topic of the GED guidelines and the current realities of patient care.

The Geriatric Emergency Department (GED) Guidelines, published in 2014 in Annals of Emergency Medicine, were endorsed by the American College of Emergency Physicians, American Geriatrics Society, Emergency Nurses Association, and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

“With the substantial challenges in providing guideline-recommended care in EDs, this article will explore three high-impact GED clinical conditions to highlight guideline recommendations, challenges, and opportunities, and discuss realistically achievable expectations for non–GED-accredited institutions,” the authors wrote. The article addressed the ED patient with delirium, the ED fall patient, and the ED patient with polypharmacy.
 

Geriatric patients and delirium

When delirium in older adults is not identified in the ED, the patient’s 6-month mortality rate significantly increases, but few EDs have delirium screening protocols, the authors said. Challenges included the time and money needed to educate staff, on top of multiple mandatory training requirements on other topics. Delirium screening in the clinical setting also requires personnel to conduct assessments, and time to document symptoms and screening results in medical records.

“Perhaps the highest priority challenge for delirium experts is to evaluate and publish effective delirium intervention strategies because current evidence is completely lacking for ED-based delirium prevention or treatment,” they said. In the meantime, developing outcome measures for quality improvement of delirium care will require institutional support as well as education.
 

Geriatric patients and falls

Approximately one third of community-dwelling adults older than 65 years suffer falls, but data suggest that fewer than half of these individuals report falls to their doctors. “Older adults who present to an ED after a fall have an approximately 30% greater risk of functional decline and depression at 6 months after the event,” the authors noted.

The GED guidelines call for a comprehensive approach to evaluating and managing falls in older adults, but many of these “are untested in the ED,” the authors said. The recommended protocol includes an initial assessment of fall risk, followed by, for those at low risk, tailored recommendations for education and the use of community resources. Additional recommendations for those at high risk of falls include multifactorial assessment of modifiable risk factors, including peripheral neuropathy, balance/gait assessment, and medication review.

However, this best practice workflow is beyond the resource capacity of most EDs, the authors noted. “When ED resources are insufficient to support best practices, the care should focus on educating patients and caregivers about the significance of a fall event, providing educational materials (e.g., [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s] STEADI materials), and assessing safety with respect to mobility for immediate return to the home environment and follow-up with a PCP.”
 

Geriatric patients and polypharmacy

Polypharmacy is common among older adults by virtue of their greater number of illnesses and comorbid conditions, and polypharmacy also has been associated with more adverse drug reactions, the authors said. The AGS Beers Criteria identifies medications associated with adverse drug reactions, but it is not practical for use in a busy ED setting. Instead, the authors suggested a more practical approach of focusing on a smaller list of common medications that tend to cause the adverse events that may result in ED visits.

“Perhaps targeting patients on multiple (three or more) psychoactive medications, drugs that can cause hypotension, or hypoglycemics could not only be done quickly, but identify patients in whom deprescribing should be considered in the ED,” the authors wrote. Deprescribing is a complicated process, however, and may be more effective when done via the patient’s primary care provider or in a geriatric consultation.

The GED Guidelines highlighted the specific needs of the geriatric population in the ED, the authors said. Widespread implementation remains a challenge, but many organizations provide resources to help improve care of geriatric patients in the ED and beyond.

In particular, the Geriatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network and Geriatric Emergency Department Collaborative provide funding opportunities, updated and focused published reviews, and webinars (some including free continuing medical education) for the entire health care team, including hospital administrators, the authors said.
 

Article brings attention to clinical realities

“The reality is that the overwhelming majority of emergency departments in the United States, if not globally, are simply not equipped – operationally or financially – to meet the rigorous standards that are required to fulfill the goals of operating an accredited geriatric ED,” Robert D. Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, said in an interview.

“Drawing attention to this important gap in accreditation is critical to not only inform hospitals, health care providers and stakeholders, but the public, patients, and their families about the important work that needs to be done to better equip all EDs with the proper tools and educational approaches to more effectively care for the geriatric community,” Dr. Glatter emphasized.

“There are currently three tiers of accreditation, with level 1 being the highest,” he explained, but there are only 100 geriatric ED accreditation-certified hospitals across the United States.

“I am not surprised at all by the challenges of implementing current GED guidelines,” said Dr. Glatter. “It comes down to operational and budget considerations, which ultimately compete with many other departments and regulatory constraints in any given hospital.”

However, “the bottom line is that such guidelines are designed with patient safety in mind, making them important issues in the eyes of any hospital administrator looking to improve outcomes and reduce medicolegal risk or exposure impacting geriatric patients in the emergency department,” he noted. 

Ultimately, guideline adherence “comes down to budget decisions, and where hospitals must invest their money to meet the bottom line,” said Dr. Glatter. “Making modifications to hospital infrastructure and architecture to accommodate geriatric patients may not be the top priority of hospital administrators when confronted with multiple competing interests. But, if it impacts patient safety, the decision to invest in structural and operational improvements may certainly have additional and important considerations.

“Until Medicare, or even the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals, adopts geriatric guidelines in emergency departments as a requirement for accreditation, there may not be adequate incentives in place currently to satisfy the intent of having a rigorous set of guidelines in the first place,” Dr. Glatter added. 

Despite the limitations of applying the current guidelines, there are some steps hospitals can take, said Dr. Glatter. “They can institute new measures in a graded fashion, with the goal of taking the important steps to satisfy at least some components of the guidelines. Attention to details can go a long way, such as rails in bathrooms, better lighting, and treads on floors that may reduce the risk of falls in the ED itself.

“Attention to fall prevention by assessing contributors including polypharmacy, gait instability, and quality of footwear can impact risk of future ED visits. Having incentives in place by Medicare or JACO may force the hand of hospital administrators to comply with geriatric guidelines and place emphasis on compliance,” noted Dr. Glatter.

More research is needed that “looks at costs of implementing geriatric guidelines in typical community and academic EDs and how this impacts key metrics such as length of stay, effect on reimbursement per ICD-10 code, and savings, if any, realized in reduced malpractice claims related to missed diagnoses (such as delirium), injuries, (patient falls), or medical misadventures due to polypharmacy,” he said.

The article received no outside funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Glatter disclosed no relevant financial relationships, and serves on the advisory board of Medscape Emergency Medicine.

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

Many emergency departments are currently unable to provide care for geriatric patients that meets best practices and guidelines recommended by several major medical organizations, but a panel discussion in 2021 at the American Academy of Emergency Medicine’s Scientific Assembly identified three areas in which realistic improvements might be achieved.

In an article published online in the Journal of Emergency Medicine, Richard D. Shih, MD, of Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, and colleagues synthesized the presentation and discussion of an expert panel on the topic of the GED guidelines and the current realities of patient care.

The Geriatric Emergency Department (GED) Guidelines, published in 2014 in Annals of Emergency Medicine, were endorsed by the American College of Emergency Physicians, American Geriatrics Society, Emergency Nurses Association, and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

“With the substantial challenges in providing guideline-recommended care in EDs, this article will explore three high-impact GED clinical conditions to highlight guideline recommendations, challenges, and opportunities, and discuss realistically achievable expectations for non–GED-accredited institutions,” the authors wrote. The article addressed the ED patient with delirium, the ED fall patient, and the ED patient with polypharmacy.
 

Geriatric patients and delirium

When delirium in older adults is not identified in the ED, the patient’s 6-month mortality rate significantly increases, but few EDs have delirium screening protocols, the authors said. Challenges included the time and money needed to educate staff, on top of multiple mandatory training requirements on other topics. Delirium screening in the clinical setting also requires personnel to conduct assessments, and time to document symptoms and screening results in medical records.

“Perhaps the highest priority challenge for delirium experts is to evaluate and publish effective delirium intervention strategies because current evidence is completely lacking for ED-based delirium prevention or treatment,” they said. In the meantime, developing outcome measures for quality improvement of delirium care will require institutional support as well as education.
 

Geriatric patients and falls

Approximately one third of community-dwelling adults older than 65 years suffer falls, but data suggest that fewer than half of these individuals report falls to their doctors. “Older adults who present to an ED after a fall have an approximately 30% greater risk of functional decline and depression at 6 months after the event,” the authors noted.

The GED guidelines call for a comprehensive approach to evaluating and managing falls in older adults, but many of these “are untested in the ED,” the authors said. The recommended protocol includes an initial assessment of fall risk, followed by, for those at low risk, tailored recommendations for education and the use of community resources. Additional recommendations for those at high risk of falls include multifactorial assessment of modifiable risk factors, including peripheral neuropathy, balance/gait assessment, and medication review.

However, this best practice workflow is beyond the resource capacity of most EDs, the authors noted. “When ED resources are insufficient to support best practices, the care should focus on educating patients and caregivers about the significance of a fall event, providing educational materials (e.g., [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s] STEADI materials), and assessing safety with respect to mobility for immediate return to the home environment and follow-up with a PCP.”
 

Geriatric patients and polypharmacy

Polypharmacy is common among older adults by virtue of their greater number of illnesses and comorbid conditions, and polypharmacy also has been associated with more adverse drug reactions, the authors said. The AGS Beers Criteria identifies medications associated with adverse drug reactions, but it is not practical for use in a busy ED setting. Instead, the authors suggested a more practical approach of focusing on a smaller list of common medications that tend to cause the adverse events that may result in ED visits.

“Perhaps targeting patients on multiple (three or more) psychoactive medications, drugs that can cause hypotension, or hypoglycemics could not only be done quickly, but identify patients in whom deprescribing should be considered in the ED,” the authors wrote. Deprescribing is a complicated process, however, and may be more effective when done via the patient’s primary care provider or in a geriatric consultation.

The GED Guidelines highlighted the specific needs of the geriatric population in the ED, the authors said. Widespread implementation remains a challenge, but many organizations provide resources to help improve care of geriatric patients in the ED and beyond.

In particular, the Geriatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network and Geriatric Emergency Department Collaborative provide funding opportunities, updated and focused published reviews, and webinars (some including free continuing medical education) for the entire health care team, including hospital administrators, the authors said.
 

Article brings attention to clinical realities

“The reality is that the overwhelming majority of emergency departments in the United States, if not globally, are simply not equipped – operationally or financially – to meet the rigorous standards that are required to fulfill the goals of operating an accredited geriatric ED,” Robert D. Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, said in an interview.

“Drawing attention to this important gap in accreditation is critical to not only inform hospitals, health care providers and stakeholders, but the public, patients, and their families about the important work that needs to be done to better equip all EDs with the proper tools and educational approaches to more effectively care for the geriatric community,” Dr. Glatter emphasized.

“There are currently three tiers of accreditation, with level 1 being the highest,” he explained, but there are only 100 geriatric ED accreditation-certified hospitals across the United States.

“I am not surprised at all by the challenges of implementing current GED guidelines,” said Dr. Glatter. “It comes down to operational and budget considerations, which ultimately compete with many other departments and regulatory constraints in any given hospital.”

However, “the bottom line is that such guidelines are designed with patient safety in mind, making them important issues in the eyes of any hospital administrator looking to improve outcomes and reduce medicolegal risk or exposure impacting geriatric patients in the emergency department,” he noted. 

Ultimately, guideline adherence “comes down to budget decisions, and where hospitals must invest their money to meet the bottom line,” said Dr. Glatter. “Making modifications to hospital infrastructure and architecture to accommodate geriatric patients may not be the top priority of hospital administrators when confronted with multiple competing interests. But, if it impacts patient safety, the decision to invest in structural and operational improvements may certainly have additional and important considerations.

“Until Medicare, or even the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals, adopts geriatric guidelines in emergency departments as a requirement for accreditation, there may not be adequate incentives in place currently to satisfy the intent of having a rigorous set of guidelines in the first place,” Dr. Glatter added. 

Despite the limitations of applying the current guidelines, there are some steps hospitals can take, said Dr. Glatter. “They can institute new measures in a graded fashion, with the goal of taking the important steps to satisfy at least some components of the guidelines. Attention to details can go a long way, such as rails in bathrooms, better lighting, and treads on floors that may reduce the risk of falls in the ED itself.

“Attention to fall prevention by assessing contributors including polypharmacy, gait instability, and quality of footwear can impact risk of future ED visits. Having incentives in place by Medicare or JACO may force the hand of hospital administrators to comply with geriatric guidelines and place emphasis on compliance,” noted Dr. Glatter.

More research is needed that “looks at costs of implementing geriatric guidelines in typical community and academic EDs and how this impacts key metrics such as length of stay, effect on reimbursement per ICD-10 code, and savings, if any, realized in reduced malpractice claims related to missed diagnoses (such as delirium), injuries, (patient falls), or medical misadventures due to polypharmacy,” he said.

The article received no outside funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Glatter disclosed no relevant financial relationships, and serves on the advisory board of Medscape Emergency Medicine.

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

Many emergency departments are currently unable to provide care for geriatric patients that meets best practices and guidelines recommended by several major medical organizations, but a panel discussion in 2021 at the American Academy of Emergency Medicine’s Scientific Assembly identified three areas in which realistic improvements might be achieved.

In an article published online in the Journal of Emergency Medicine, Richard D. Shih, MD, of Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, and colleagues synthesized the presentation and discussion of an expert panel on the topic of the GED guidelines and the current realities of patient care.

The Geriatric Emergency Department (GED) Guidelines, published in 2014 in Annals of Emergency Medicine, were endorsed by the American College of Emergency Physicians, American Geriatrics Society, Emergency Nurses Association, and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

“With the substantial challenges in providing guideline-recommended care in EDs, this article will explore three high-impact GED clinical conditions to highlight guideline recommendations, challenges, and opportunities, and discuss realistically achievable expectations for non–GED-accredited institutions,” the authors wrote. The article addressed the ED patient with delirium, the ED fall patient, and the ED patient with polypharmacy.
 

Geriatric patients and delirium

When delirium in older adults is not identified in the ED, the patient’s 6-month mortality rate significantly increases, but few EDs have delirium screening protocols, the authors said. Challenges included the time and money needed to educate staff, on top of multiple mandatory training requirements on other topics. Delirium screening in the clinical setting also requires personnel to conduct assessments, and time to document symptoms and screening results in medical records.

“Perhaps the highest priority challenge for delirium experts is to evaluate and publish effective delirium intervention strategies because current evidence is completely lacking for ED-based delirium prevention or treatment,” they said. In the meantime, developing outcome measures for quality improvement of delirium care will require institutional support as well as education.
 

Geriatric patients and falls

Approximately one third of community-dwelling adults older than 65 years suffer falls, but data suggest that fewer than half of these individuals report falls to their doctors. “Older adults who present to an ED after a fall have an approximately 30% greater risk of functional decline and depression at 6 months after the event,” the authors noted.

The GED guidelines call for a comprehensive approach to evaluating and managing falls in older adults, but many of these “are untested in the ED,” the authors said. The recommended protocol includes an initial assessment of fall risk, followed by, for those at low risk, tailored recommendations for education and the use of community resources. Additional recommendations for those at high risk of falls include multifactorial assessment of modifiable risk factors, including peripheral neuropathy, balance/gait assessment, and medication review.

However, this best practice workflow is beyond the resource capacity of most EDs, the authors noted. “When ED resources are insufficient to support best practices, the care should focus on educating patients and caregivers about the significance of a fall event, providing educational materials (e.g., [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s] STEADI materials), and assessing safety with respect to mobility for immediate return to the home environment and follow-up with a PCP.”
 

Geriatric patients and polypharmacy

Polypharmacy is common among older adults by virtue of their greater number of illnesses and comorbid conditions, and polypharmacy also has been associated with more adverse drug reactions, the authors said. The AGS Beers Criteria identifies medications associated with adverse drug reactions, but it is not practical for use in a busy ED setting. Instead, the authors suggested a more practical approach of focusing on a smaller list of common medications that tend to cause the adverse events that may result in ED visits.

“Perhaps targeting patients on multiple (three or more) psychoactive medications, drugs that can cause hypotension, or hypoglycemics could not only be done quickly, but identify patients in whom deprescribing should be considered in the ED,” the authors wrote. Deprescribing is a complicated process, however, and may be more effective when done via the patient’s primary care provider or in a geriatric consultation.

The GED Guidelines highlighted the specific needs of the geriatric population in the ED, the authors said. Widespread implementation remains a challenge, but many organizations provide resources to help improve care of geriatric patients in the ED and beyond.

In particular, the Geriatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network and Geriatric Emergency Department Collaborative provide funding opportunities, updated and focused published reviews, and webinars (some including free continuing medical education) for the entire health care team, including hospital administrators, the authors said.
 

Article brings attention to clinical realities

“The reality is that the overwhelming majority of emergency departments in the United States, if not globally, are simply not equipped – operationally or financially – to meet the rigorous standards that are required to fulfill the goals of operating an accredited geriatric ED,” Robert D. Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, said in an interview.

“Drawing attention to this important gap in accreditation is critical to not only inform hospitals, health care providers and stakeholders, but the public, patients, and their families about the important work that needs to be done to better equip all EDs with the proper tools and educational approaches to more effectively care for the geriatric community,” Dr. Glatter emphasized.

“There are currently three tiers of accreditation, with level 1 being the highest,” he explained, but there are only 100 geriatric ED accreditation-certified hospitals across the United States.

“I am not surprised at all by the challenges of implementing current GED guidelines,” said Dr. Glatter. “It comes down to operational and budget considerations, which ultimately compete with many other departments and regulatory constraints in any given hospital.”

However, “the bottom line is that such guidelines are designed with patient safety in mind, making them important issues in the eyes of any hospital administrator looking to improve outcomes and reduce medicolegal risk or exposure impacting geriatric patients in the emergency department,” he noted. 

Ultimately, guideline adherence “comes down to budget decisions, and where hospitals must invest their money to meet the bottom line,” said Dr. Glatter. “Making modifications to hospital infrastructure and architecture to accommodate geriatric patients may not be the top priority of hospital administrators when confronted with multiple competing interests. But, if it impacts patient safety, the decision to invest in structural and operational improvements may certainly have additional and important considerations.

“Until Medicare, or even the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals, adopts geriatric guidelines in emergency departments as a requirement for accreditation, there may not be adequate incentives in place currently to satisfy the intent of having a rigorous set of guidelines in the first place,” Dr. Glatter added. 

Despite the limitations of applying the current guidelines, there are some steps hospitals can take, said Dr. Glatter. “They can institute new measures in a graded fashion, with the goal of taking the important steps to satisfy at least some components of the guidelines. Attention to details can go a long way, such as rails in bathrooms, better lighting, and treads on floors that may reduce the risk of falls in the ED itself.

“Attention to fall prevention by assessing contributors including polypharmacy, gait instability, and quality of footwear can impact risk of future ED visits. Having incentives in place by Medicare or JACO may force the hand of hospital administrators to comply with geriatric guidelines and place emphasis on compliance,” noted Dr. Glatter.

More research is needed that “looks at costs of implementing geriatric guidelines in typical community and academic EDs and how this impacts key metrics such as length of stay, effect on reimbursement per ICD-10 code, and savings, if any, realized in reduced malpractice claims related to missed diagnoses (such as delirium), injuries, (patient falls), or medical misadventures due to polypharmacy,” he said.

The article received no outside funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Glatter disclosed no relevant financial relationships, and serves on the advisory board of Medscape Emergency Medicine.

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

Some patients with long COVID may have long-lasting nerve damage that could lead to fatigue, sensory changes, and pain in the hands and feet, according to a new study published in the journal Neurology: Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation (doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000001146).

The nerve damage, which has been seen even among mild coronavirus cases, appears to be caused by immunity problems triggered by infection.

“This is one of the early papers looking into causes of long COVID, which will steadily increase in importance as acute COVID wanes,” Anne Louise Oaklander, MD, the lead study author and a neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in a statement.

“Our findings suggest that some long COVID patients had damage to their peripheral nerve fibers and that damage to the small-fiber type of nerve cell may be prominent,” she said.

The research team analyzed data from 17 COVID-19 survivors with lingering symptoms who had no history or risks of neuropathy, or nerve damage or disease. The patients were from 10 states and territories, and all but one had mild infections.

They found that 10 patients – or 59% – had at least one test that confirmed neuropathy. Two patients had rare neuropathies that affected muscle nerves, and 10 were diagnosed with small-fiber neuropathy, which is a cause of chronic pain. Common symptoms included fatigue, weakness, changes in their senses, and pain in their hands and feet.

For treatment, 11 patients were given immunotherapies such as corticosteroids or intravenous immunoglobulins, and the five patients who received repeated IgG treatments appeared to benefit. Over time, 52% of patients improved, though none had all of their symptoms go away.

“Research from our team and others is clarifying what the different types of post-COVID neuropathy are and how best to diagnose and treat them,” she said. “Most long COVID neuropathies described so far appear to reflect immune responses to the virus that went off course.”

Dr. Oaklander noted that researchers haven’t been able to do clinical trials to evaluate specific post-COVID neuropathy treatments. But some existing treatments may help.

“Some patients seem to improve from standard treatments for other immune-related neuropathies,” she said.

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

Some patients with long COVID may have long-lasting nerve damage that could lead to fatigue, sensory changes, and pain in the hands and feet, according to a new study published in the journal Neurology: Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation (doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000001146).

The nerve damage, which has been seen even among mild coronavirus cases, appears to be caused by immunity problems triggered by infection.

“This is one of the early papers looking into causes of long COVID, which will steadily increase in importance as acute COVID wanes,” Anne Louise Oaklander, MD, the lead study author and a neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in a statement.

“Our findings suggest that some long COVID patients had damage to their peripheral nerve fibers and that damage to the small-fiber type of nerve cell may be prominent,” she said.

The research team analyzed data from 17 COVID-19 survivors with lingering symptoms who had no history or risks of neuropathy, or nerve damage or disease. The patients were from 10 states and territories, and all but one had mild infections.

They found that 10 patients – or 59% – had at least one test that confirmed neuropathy. Two patients had rare neuropathies that affected muscle nerves, and 10 were diagnosed with small-fiber neuropathy, which is a cause of chronic pain. Common symptoms included fatigue, weakness, changes in their senses, and pain in their hands and feet.

For treatment, 11 patients were given immunotherapies such as corticosteroids or intravenous immunoglobulins, and the five patients who received repeated IgG treatments appeared to benefit. Over time, 52% of patients improved, though none had all of their symptoms go away.

“Research from our team and others is clarifying what the different types of post-COVID neuropathy are and how best to diagnose and treat them,” she said. “Most long COVID neuropathies described so far appear to reflect immune responses to the virus that went off course.”

Dr. Oaklander noted that researchers haven’t been able to do clinical trials to evaluate specific post-COVID neuropathy treatments. But some existing treatments may help.

“Some patients seem to improve from standard treatments for other immune-related neuropathies,” she said.

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

Some patients with long COVID may have long-lasting nerve damage that could lead to fatigue, sensory changes, and pain in the hands and feet, according to a new study published in the journal Neurology: Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation (doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000001146).

The nerve damage, which has been seen even among mild coronavirus cases, appears to be caused by immunity problems triggered by infection.

“This is one of the early papers looking into causes of long COVID, which will steadily increase in importance as acute COVID wanes,” Anne Louise Oaklander, MD, the lead study author and a neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in a statement.

“Our findings suggest that some long COVID patients had damage to their peripheral nerve fibers and that damage to the small-fiber type of nerve cell may be prominent,” she said.

The research team analyzed data from 17 COVID-19 survivors with lingering symptoms who had no history or risks of neuropathy, or nerve damage or disease. The patients were from 10 states and territories, and all but one had mild infections.

They found that 10 patients – or 59% – had at least one test that confirmed neuropathy. Two patients had rare neuropathies that affected muscle nerves, and 10 were diagnosed with small-fiber neuropathy, which is a cause of chronic pain. Common symptoms included fatigue, weakness, changes in their senses, and pain in their hands and feet.

For treatment, 11 patients were given immunotherapies such as corticosteroids or intravenous immunoglobulins, and the five patients who received repeated IgG treatments appeared to benefit. Over time, 52% of patients improved, though none had all of their symptoms go away.

“Research from our team and others is clarifying what the different types of post-COVID neuropathy are and how best to diagnose and treat them,” she said. “Most long COVID neuropathies described so far appear to reflect immune responses to the virus that went off course.”

Dr. Oaklander noted that researchers haven’t been able to do clinical trials to evaluate specific post-COVID neuropathy treatments. But some existing treatments may help.

“Some patients seem to improve from standard treatments for other immune-related neuropathies,” she said.

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