User login
How to manage cancer pain when patients misuse opioids
Opioids remain a staple in pain management for cancer, but there is little guidance around how to treat patients who have a history of opioid misuse.
Recently,
“There is a tendency to ignore treatment of opioid use disorder in advanced cancer patients because people think: ‘Oh, this person has bigger fish to fry,’ but that’s not a very patient-centric way of looking at things,” senior author Jessica Merlin, MD, PhD, with the University of Pittsburgh, said in a news release.
“We know that opioid use disorder is a really important factor in quality of life, so addressing opioid addiction and prescription opioid misuse in people with advanced cancer is really critical,” Dr. Merlin added.
The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.
To improve care for people with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain, the researchers first assessed how clinicians currently treat patients with opioid complexity.
Using an online Delphi platform, the team invited 120 clinicians with expertise in palliative care, pain management, and addiction medicine to weigh in on three common clinical scenarios – a patient with a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, a patient taking more opioids than prescribed, and a patient using nonprescribed benzodiazepines.
For a patient with cancer and a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, regardless of prognosis, the panel deemed it appropriate to begin treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone for pain but inappropriate to refer the patient to a methadone clinic. The panel felt that going to a methadone clinic would be too burdensome for a patient with advanced cancer and not possible for those with limited prognoses.
“This underscores the importance of access to [opioid use disorder] treatment in cancer treatment settings, including non–addiction specialists waivered to prescribe buprenorphine/naloxone and addiction specialists for more complex cases,” the authors wrote.
For a patient with untreated opioid use disorder, the panel deemed split-dose methadone (two to three times daily) appropriate in those with limited prognosis of weeks to months but was uncertain about the suitability of this approach for patients with longer prognoses of a year or longer.
The appropriateness of initiating treatment with a full-agonist opioid was considered uncertain for a patient with limited prognosis and inappropriate for a patient with longer prognosis.
For a patient with cancer pain and no medical history of opioid use disorder but taking more opioids than prescribed, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to increase monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids. The panel was not certain about whether to increase opioids based on the patient’s account of what they need or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.
For a patient with no history of opioid use disorder who was prescribed traditional opioids for pain and had a positive urine drug test for nonprescribed benzodiazepines, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to continue opioids with close monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.
The researchers said that improving education around buprenorphine and cancer pain management in the context of opioid use disorder or misuse is needed.
In a related editorial, two experts noted that the patients considered in this “important article” require considerable time and expertise from an interdisciplinary team.
“It is important that cancer centers establish and fund such teams mainly as a safety measure for these patients and also as a major contribution to the care of all patients with cancer,” wrote Joseph Arthur, MD, and Eduardo Bruera, MD, with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
In the wider context, Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera highlighted how treatments for patients with advanced cancer have evolved over the past 3 decades, yet patients have continued to be given opioids to address cancer-related pain. Developing more sophisticated drugs that relieve pain without significant side effects or addictive properties is imperative.
Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera said the study authors “appropriately emphasize the value of delivering compassionate and expert care for these particularly complex cases and the importance of conducting research on the best ways to alleviate the suffering in this rapidly growing patient population.”
This research was supported by Cambia Health Foundation and the National Institute of Nursing Research. Dr. Merlin, Dr. Arthur, and Dr. Bruera reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Opioids remain a staple in pain management for cancer, but there is little guidance around how to treat patients who have a history of opioid misuse.
Recently,
“There is a tendency to ignore treatment of opioid use disorder in advanced cancer patients because people think: ‘Oh, this person has bigger fish to fry,’ but that’s not a very patient-centric way of looking at things,” senior author Jessica Merlin, MD, PhD, with the University of Pittsburgh, said in a news release.
“We know that opioid use disorder is a really important factor in quality of life, so addressing opioid addiction and prescription opioid misuse in people with advanced cancer is really critical,” Dr. Merlin added.
The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.
To improve care for people with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain, the researchers first assessed how clinicians currently treat patients with opioid complexity.
Using an online Delphi platform, the team invited 120 clinicians with expertise in palliative care, pain management, and addiction medicine to weigh in on three common clinical scenarios – a patient with a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, a patient taking more opioids than prescribed, and a patient using nonprescribed benzodiazepines.
For a patient with cancer and a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, regardless of prognosis, the panel deemed it appropriate to begin treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone for pain but inappropriate to refer the patient to a methadone clinic. The panel felt that going to a methadone clinic would be too burdensome for a patient with advanced cancer and not possible for those with limited prognoses.
“This underscores the importance of access to [opioid use disorder] treatment in cancer treatment settings, including non–addiction specialists waivered to prescribe buprenorphine/naloxone and addiction specialists for more complex cases,” the authors wrote.
For a patient with untreated opioid use disorder, the panel deemed split-dose methadone (two to three times daily) appropriate in those with limited prognosis of weeks to months but was uncertain about the suitability of this approach for patients with longer prognoses of a year or longer.
The appropriateness of initiating treatment with a full-agonist opioid was considered uncertain for a patient with limited prognosis and inappropriate for a patient with longer prognosis.
For a patient with cancer pain and no medical history of opioid use disorder but taking more opioids than prescribed, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to increase monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids. The panel was not certain about whether to increase opioids based on the patient’s account of what they need or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.
For a patient with no history of opioid use disorder who was prescribed traditional opioids for pain and had a positive urine drug test for nonprescribed benzodiazepines, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to continue opioids with close monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.
The researchers said that improving education around buprenorphine and cancer pain management in the context of opioid use disorder or misuse is needed.
In a related editorial, two experts noted that the patients considered in this “important article” require considerable time and expertise from an interdisciplinary team.
“It is important that cancer centers establish and fund such teams mainly as a safety measure for these patients and also as a major contribution to the care of all patients with cancer,” wrote Joseph Arthur, MD, and Eduardo Bruera, MD, with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
In the wider context, Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera highlighted how treatments for patients with advanced cancer have evolved over the past 3 decades, yet patients have continued to be given opioids to address cancer-related pain. Developing more sophisticated drugs that relieve pain without significant side effects or addictive properties is imperative.
Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera said the study authors “appropriately emphasize the value of delivering compassionate and expert care for these particularly complex cases and the importance of conducting research on the best ways to alleviate the suffering in this rapidly growing patient population.”
This research was supported by Cambia Health Foundation and the National Institute of Nursing Research. Dr. Merlin, Dr. Arthur, and Dr. Bruera reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Opioids remain a staple in pain management for cancer, but there is little guidance around how to treat patients who have a history of opioid misuse.
Recently,
“There is a tendency to ignore treatment of opioid use disorder in advanced cancer patients because people think: ‘Oh, this person has bigger fish to fry,’ but that’s not a very patient-centric way of looking at things,” senior author Jessica Merlin, MD, PhD, with the University of Pittsburgh, said in a news release.
“We know that opioid use disorder is a really important factor in quality of life, so addressing opioid addiction and prescription opioid misuse in people with advanced cancer is really critical,” Dr. Merlin added.
The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.
To improve care for people with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain, the researchers first assessed how clinicians currently treat patients with opioid complexity.
Using an online Delphi platform, the team invited 120 clinicians with expertise in palliative care, pain management, and addiction medicine to weigh in on three common clinical scenarios – a patient with a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, a patient taking more opioids than prescribed, and a patient using nonprescribed benzodiazepines.
For a patient with cancer and a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, regardless of prognosis, the panel deemed it appropriate to begin treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone for pain but inappropriate to refer the patient to a methadone clinic. The panel felt that going to a methadone clinic would be too burdensome for a patient with advanced cancer and not possible for those with limited prognoses.
“This underscores the importance of access to [opioid use disorder] treatment in cancer treatment settings, including non–addiction specialists waivered to prescribe buprenorphine/naloxone and addiction specialists for more complex cases,” the authors wrote.
For a patient with untreated opioid use disorder, the panel deemed split-dose methadone (two to three times daily) appropriate in those with limited prognosis of weeks to months but was uncertain about the suitability of this approach for patients with longer prognoses of a year or longer.
The appropriateness of initiating treatment with a full-agonist opioid was considered uncertain for a patient with limited prognosis and inappropriate for a patient with longer prognosis.
For a patient with cancer pain and no medical history of opioid use disorder but taking more opioids than prescribed, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to increase monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids. The panel was not certain about whether to increase opioids based on the patient’s account of what they need or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.
For a patient with no history of opioid use disorder who was prescribed traditional opioids for pain and had a positive urine drug test for nonprescribed benzodiazepines, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to continue opioids with close monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.
The researchers said that improving education around buprenorphine and cancer pain management in the context of opioid use disorder or misuse is needed.
In a related editorial, two experts noted that the patients considered in this “important article” require considerable time and expertise from an interdisciplinary team.
“It is important that cancer centers establish and fund such teams mainly as a safety measure for these patients and also as a major contribution to the care of all patients with cancer,” wrote Joseph Arthur, MD, and Eduardo Bruera, MD, with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
In the wider context, Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera highlighted how treatments for patients with advanced cancer have evolved over the past 3 decades, yet patients have continued to be given opioids to address cancer-related pain. Developing more sophisticated drugs that relieve pain without significant side effects or addictive properties is imperative.
Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera said the study authors “appropriately emphasize the value of delivering compassionate and expert care for these particularly complex cases and the importance of conducting research on the best ways to alleviate the suffering in this rapidly growing patient population.”
This research was supported by Cambia Health Foundation and the National Institute of Nursing Research. Dr. Merlin, Dr. Arthur, and Dr. Bruera reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
New AHA checklist: Only one in five adults has optimal heart health
About 80% of American adults have low to moderate cardiovascular (CV) health based on the American Heart Association checklist for optimal heart health, which now includes healthy sleep as an essential component for heart health.
With the addition of sleep, “Life’s Essential 8” replaces the AHA’s “Life’s Simple 7” checklist.
“The new metric of sleep duration reflects the latest research findings: Sleep impacts overall health, and people who have healthier sleep patterns manage health factors such as weight, blood pressure, or risk for type 2 diabetes more effectively,” AHA President Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, said in a news release.
“In addition, advances in ways to measure sleep, such as with wearable devices, now offer people the ability to reliably and routinely monitor their sleep habits at home,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago.
The AHA Presidential Advisory – Life’s Essential 8: Updating and Enhancing the American Heart Association’s Construct on Cardiovascular Health – was published online in the journal Circulation.
A companion paper published simultaneously in Circulation reports the first study using Life’s Essential 8.
Overall, the results show that CV health of the U.S. population is “suboptimal, and we see important differences across age and sociodemographic groups,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.
Refining Life’s Simple 7
The AHA first defined the seven metrics for optimal CV health in 2010. After 12 years and more than 2,400 scientific papers on the topic, new discoveries in CV health and ways to measure it provided an opportunity to revisit each health component in more detail and provide updates as needed, the AHA explains.
“We felt it was the right time to conduct a comprehensive review of the latest research to refine the existing metrics and consider any new metrics that add value to assessing cardiovascular health for all people,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.
Four of the original metrics have been redefined for consistency with newer clinical guidelines or compatibility with new measurement tools, and the scoring system can now also be applied to anyone ages 2 and older. Here is a snapshot of Life’s Essential 8 metrics, including updates.
1. Diet (updated)
The tool includes a new guide to assess diet quality for adults and children at the individual and population level. At the population level, dietary assessment is based on daily intake of elements in the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) eating pattern. For individuals, the Mediterranean Eating Pattern for Americans (MEPA) is used to assess and monitor cardiovascular health.
2. Physical activity (no changes)
Physical activity continues to be measured by the total number of minutes of moderate or vigorous physical activity per week, as defined by the U.S. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (2nd edition). The optimal level is 150 minutes (2.5 hours) of moderate physical activity or more per week or 75 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity physical activity for adults; 420 minutes (7 hours) or more per week for children ages 6 and older; and age-specific modifications for younger children.
3. Nicotine exposure (updated)
Use of inhaled nicotine-delivery systems, which includes e-cigarettes or vaping devices, has been added since the previous metric monitored only traditional, combustible cigarettes. This reflects use by adults and youth and their implications on long-term health. Second-hand smoke exposure for children and adults has also been added.
4. Sleep duration (new)
Sleep duration is associated with CV health. Measured by average hours of sleep per night, the ideal level is 7-9 hours daily for adults. Ideal daily sleep ranges for children are 10-16 hours per 24 hours for ages 5 and younger; 9-12 hours for ages 6-12 years; and 8-10 hours for ages 13-18 years.
5. Body mass index (no changes)
The AHA acknowledges that body mass index (BMI) is an imperfect metric. Yet, because it’s easily calculated and widely available, BMI continues as a “reasonable” gauge to assess weight categories that may lead to health problems. BMI of 18.5-24.9 is associated with the highest levels of CV health. The AHA notes that BMI ranges and the subsequent health risks associated with them may differ among people from diverse racial or ethnic backgrounds or ancestry. This aligns with the World Health Organization recommendations to adjust BMI ranges for people of Asian or Pacific Islander ancestry because recent evidence indicates their risk of conditions such as CVD or type 2 diabetes is higher at a lower BMI.
6. Blood lipids (updated)
The metric for blood lipids (cholesterol and triglycerides) is updated to use non-HDL cholesterol as the preferred number to monitor, rather than total cholesterol. This shift is made because non-HDL cholesterol can be measured without fasting beforehand (thereby increasing its availability at any time of day and implementation at more appointments) and reliably calculated among all people.
7. Blood glucose (updated)
This metric is expanded to include the option of hemoglobin A1c readings or blood glucose levels for people with or without type 1 or 2 diabetes or prediabetes.
8. Blood pressure (no changes)
Blood pressure criteria remain unchanged from 2017 guidance that established levels less than 120/80 mm Hg as optimal, and defined hypertension as 130-139 mm Hg systolic pressure or 80-89 mm Hg diastolic pressure.
‘Concerning’ new data
Results of the first study using Life’s Essential 8 show that the overall CV health of the U.S. population is “well below ideal,” with 80% of adults scoring at a low or moderate level, the researchers report.
Data for the analysis came from 2013-2018 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination surveys (NHANES) of more than 13,500 adults aged 20-79 years and nearly 9,900 children aged 2-19 years. Among the key findings:
- The average CV health score based on Life’s Essential 8 was 64.7 for adults and 65.5 for children – in the moderate range on the 0-100 scale.
- Only 0.45% of adults had a perfect score of 100; 20% had high CV health (score of 80 or higher), 63% moderate (score of 50-79), and 18% had low CV health (score of less than 50).
- Adult women had higher average CV health scores (67) compared with men (62.5).
- In general, adults scored lowest in the areas of diet, physical activity, and BMI.
- CV health scores were generally lower at older ages.
- Non-Hispanic Asian Americans had a higher average CV health score than other racial/ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic Whites had the second highest average CV health score, followed, in order, by Hispanic (other than Mexican), Mexican, and non-Hispanic Blacks.
- Children’s diet scores were low, at an average of 40.6.
- Adult sociodemographic groups varied notably in CV health scores for diet, nicotine exposure, blood glucose, and blood pressure.
“These data represent the first look at the cardiovascular health of the U.S. population using the AHA’s new Life’s Essential 8 scoring algorithm,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.
“Life’s Essential 8 is a major step forward in our ability to identify when cardiovascular health can be preserved and when it is suboptimal. It should energize efforts to improve cardiovascular health for all people and at every life stage,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added.
“Analyses like this can help policymakers, communities, clinicians, and the public to understand the opportunities to intervene to improve and maintain optimal cardiovascular health across the life course,” he said.
This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
About 80% of American adults have low to moderate cardiovascular (CV) health based on the American Heart Association checklist for optimal heart health, which now includes healthy sleep as an essential component for heart health.
With the addition of sleep, “Life’s Essential 8” replaces the AHA’s “Life’s Simple 7” checklist.
“The new metric of sleep duration reflects the latest research findings: Sleep impacts overall health, and people who have healthier sleep patterns manage health factors such as weight, blood pressure, or risk for type 2 diabetes more effectively,” AHA President Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, said in a news release.
“In addition, advances in ways to measure sleep, such as with wearable devices, now offer people the ability to reliably and routinely monitor their sleep habits at home,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago.
The AHA Presidential Advisory – Life’s Essential 8: Updating and Enhancing the American Heart Association’s Construct on Cardiovascular Health – was published online in the journal Circulation.
A companion paper published simultaneously in Circulation reports the first study using Life’s Essential 8.
Overall, the results show that CV health of the U.S. population is “suboptimal, and we see important differences across age and sociodemographic groups,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.
Refining Life’s Simple 7
The AHA first defined the seven metrics for optimal CV health in 2010. After 12 years and more than 2,400 scientific papers on the topic, new discoveries in CV health and ways to measure it provided an opportunity to revisit each health component in more detail and provide updates as needed, the AHA explains.
“We felt it was the right time to conduct a comprehensive review of the latest research to refine the existing metrics and consider any new metrics that add value to assessing cardiovascular health for all people,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.
Four of the original metrics have been redefined for consistency with newer clinical guidelines or compatibility with new measurement tools, and the scoring system can now also be applied to anyone ages 2 and older. Here is a snapshot of Life’s Essential 8 metrics, including updates.
1. Diet (updated)
The tool includes a new guide to assess diet quality for adults and children at the individual and population level. At the population level, dietary assessment is based on daily intake of elements in the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) eating pattern. For individuals, the Mediterranean Eating Pattern for Americans (MEPA) is used to assess and monitor cardiovascular health.
2. Physical activity (no changes)
Physical activity continues to be measured by the total number of minutes of moderate or vigorous physical activity per week, as defined by the U.S. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (2nd edition). The optimal level is 150 minutes (2.5 hours) of moderate physical activity or more per week or 75 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity physical activity for adults; 420 minutes (7 hours) or more per week for children ages 6 and older; and age-specific modifications for younger children.
3. Nicotine exposure (updated)
Use of inhaled nicotine-delivery systems, which includes e-cigarettes or vaping devices, has been added since the previous metric monitored only traditional, combustible cigarettes. This reflects use by adults and youth and their implications on long-term health. Second-hand smoke exposure for children and adults has also been added.
4. Sleep duration (new)
Sleep duration is associated with CV health. Measured by average hours of sleep per night, the ideal level is 7-9 hours daily for adults. Ideal daily sleep ranges for children are 10-16 hours per 24 hours for ages 5 and younger; 9-12 hours for ages 6-12 years; and 8-10 hours for ages 13-18 years.
5. Body mass index (no changes)
The AHA acknowledges that body mass index (BMI) is an imperfect metric. Yet, because it’s easily calculated and widely available, BMI continues as a “reasonable” gauge to assess weight categories that may lead to health problems. BMI of 18.5-24.9 is associated with the highest levels of CV health. The AHA notes that BMI ranges and the subsequent health risks associated with them may differ among people from diverse racial or ethnic backgrounds or ancestry. This aligns with the World Health Organization recommendations to adjust BMI ranges for people of Asian or Pacific Islander ancestry because recent evidence indicates their risk of conditions such as CVD or type 2 diabetes is higher at a lower BMI.
6. Blood lipids (updated)
The metric for blood lipids (cholesterol and triglycerides) is updated to use non-HDL cholesterol as the preferred number to monitor, rather than total cholesterol. This shift is made because non-HDL cholesterol can be measured without fasting beforehand (thereby increasing its availability at any time of day and implementation at more appointments) and reliably calculated among all people.
7. Blood glucose (updated)
This metric is expanded to include the option of hemoglobin A1c readings or blood glucose levels for people with or without type 1 or 2 diabetes or prediabetes.
8. Blood pressure (no changes)
Blood pressure criteria remain unchanged from 2017 guidance that established levels less than 120/80 mm Hg as optimal, and defined hypertension as 130-139 mm Hg systolic pressure or 80-89 mm Hg diastolic pressure.
‘Concerning’ new data
Results of the first study using Life’s Essential 8 show that the overall CV health of the U.S. population is “well below ideal,” with 80% of adults scoring at a low or moderate level, the researchers report.
Data for the analysis came from 2013-2018 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination surveys (NHANES) of more than 13,500 adults aged 20-79 years and nearly 9,900 children aged 2-19 years. Among the key findings:
- The average CV health score based on Life’s Essential 8 was 64.7 for adults and 65.5 for children – in the moderate range on the 0-100 scale.
- Only 0.45% of adults had a perfect score of 100; 20% had high CV health (score of 80 or higher), 63% moderate (score of 50-79), and 18% had low CV health (score of less than 50).
- Adult women had higher average CV health scores (67) compared with men (62.5).
- In general, adults scored lowest in the areas of diet, physical activity, and BMI.
- CV health scores were generally lower at older ages.
- Non-Hispanic Asian Americans had a higher average CV health score than other racial/ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic Whites had the second highest average CV health score, followed, in order, by Hispanic (other than Mexican), Mexican, and non-Hispanic Blacks.
- Children’s diet scores were low, at an average of 40.6.
- Adult sociodemographic groups varied notably in CV health scores for diet, nicotine exposure, blood glucose, and blood pressure.
“These data represent the first look at the cardiovascular health of the U.S. population using the AHA’s new Life’s Essential 8 scoring algorithm,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.
“Life’s Essential 8 is a major step forward in our ability to identify when cardiovascular health can be preserved and when it is suboptimal. It should energize efforts to improve cardiovascular health for all people and at every life stage,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added.
“Analyses like this can help policymakers, communities, clinicians, and the public to understand the opportunities to intervene to improve and maintain optimal cardiovascular health across the life course,” he said.
This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
About 80% of American adults have low to moderate cardiovascular (CV) health based on the American Heart Association checklist for optimal heart health, which now includes healthy sleep as an essential component for heart health.
With the addition of sleep, “Life’s Essential 8” replaces the AHA’s “Life’s Simple 7” checklist.
“The new metric of sleep duration reflects the latest research findings: Sleep impacts overall health, and people who have healthier sleep patterns manage health factors such as weight, blood pressure, or risk for type 2 diabetes more effectively,” AHA President Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, said in a news release.
“In addition, advances in ways to measure sleep, such as with wearable devices, now offer people the ability to reliably and routinely monitor their sleep habits at home,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago.
The AHA Presidential Advisory – Life’s Essential 8: Updating and Enhancing the American Heart Association’s Construct on Cardiovascular Health – was published online in the journal Circulation.
A companion paper published simultaneously in Circulation reports the first study using Life’s Essential 8.
Overall, the results show that CV health of the U.S. population is “suboptimal, and we see important differences across age and sociodemographic groups,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.
Refining Life’s Simple 7
The AHA first defined the seven metrics for optimal CV health in 2010. After 12 years and more than 2,400 scientific papers on the topic, new discoveries in CV health and ways to measure it provided an opportunity to revisit each health component in more detail and provide updates as needed, the AHA explains.
“We felt it was the right time to conduct a comprehensive review of the latest research to refine the existing metrics and consider any new metrics that add value to assessing cardiovascular health for all people,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.
Four of the original metrics have been redefined for consistency with newer clinical guidelines or compatibility with new measurement tools, and the scoring system can now also be applied to anyone ages 2 and older. Here is a snapshot of Life’s Essential 8 metrics, including updates.
1. Diet (updated)
The tool includes a new guide to assess diet quality for adults and children at the individual and population level. At the population level, dietary assessment is based on daily intake of elements in the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) eating pattern. For individuals, the Mediterranean Eating Pattern for Americans (MEPA) is used to assess and monitor cardiovascular health.
2. Physical activity (no changes)
Physical activity continues to be measured by the total number of minutes of moderate or vigorous physical activity per week, as defined by the U.S. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (2nd edition). The optimal level is 150 minutes (2.5 hours) of moderate physical activity or more per week or 75 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity physical activity for adults; 420 minutes (7 hours) or more per week for children ages 6 and older; and age-specific modifications for younger children.
3. Nicotine exposure (updated)
Use of inhaled nicotine-delivery systems, which includes e-cigarettes or vaping devices, has been added since the previous metric monitored only traditional, combustible cigarettes. This reflects use by adults and youth and their implications on long-term health. Second-hand smoke exposure for children and adults has also been added.
4. Sleep duration (new)
Sleep duration is associated with CV health. Measured by average hours of sleep per night, the ideal level is 7-9 hours daily for adults. Ideal daily sleep ranges for children are 10-16 hours per 24 hours for ages 5 and younger; 9-12 hours for ages 6-12 years; and 8-10 hours for ages 13-18 years.
5. Body mass index (no changes)
The AHA acknowledges that body mass index (BMI) is an imperfect metric. Yet, because it’s easily calculated and widely available, BMI continues as a “reasonable” gauge to assess weight categories that may lead to health problems. BMI of 18.5-24.9 is associated with the highest levels of CV health. The AHA notes that BMI ranges and the subsequent health risks associated with them may differ among people from diverse racial or ethnic backgrounds or ancestry. This aligns with the World Health Organization recommendations to adjust BMI ranges for people of Asian or Pacific Islander ancestry because recent evidence indicates their risk of conditions such as CVD or type 2 diabetes is higher at a lower BMI.
6. Blood lipids (updated)
The metric for blood lipids (cholesterol and triglycerides) is updated to use non-HDL cholesterol as the preferred number to monitor, rather than total cholesterol. This shift is made because non-HDL cholesterol can be measured without fasting beforehand (thereby increasing its availability at any time of day and implementation at more appointments) and reliably calculated among all people.
7. Blood glucose (updated)
This metric is expanded to include the option of hemoglobin A1c readings or blood glucose levels for people with or without type 1 or 2 diabetes or prediabetes.
8. Blood pressure (no changes)
Blood pressure criteria remain unchanged from 2017 guidance that established levels less than 120/80 mm Hg as optimal, and defined hypertension as 130-139 mm Hg systolic pressure or 80-89 mm Hg diastolic pressure.
‘Concerning’ new data
Results of the first study using Life’s Essential 8 show that the overall CV health of the U.S. population is “well below ideal,” with 80% of adults scoring at a low or moderate level, the researchers report.
Data for the analysis came from 2013-2018 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination surveys (NHANES) of more than 13,500 adults aged 20-79 years and nearly 9,900 children aged 2-19 years. Among the key findings:
- The average CV health score based on Life’s Essential 8 was 64.7 for adults and 65.5 for children – in the moderate range on the 0-100 scale.
- Only 0.45% of adults had a perfect score of 100; 20% had high CV health (score of 80 or higher), 63% moderate (score of 50-79), and 18% had low CV health (score of less than 50).
- Adult women had higher average CV health scores (67) compared with men (62.5).
- In general, adults scored lowest in the areas of diet, physical activity, and BMI.
- CV health scores were generally lower at older ages.
- Non-Hispanic Asian Americans had a higher average CV health score than other racial/ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic Whites had the second highest average CV health score, followed, in order, by Hispanic (other than Mexican), Mexican, and non-Hispanic Blacks.
- Children’s diet scores were low, at an average of 40.6.
- Adult sociodemographic groups varied notably in CV health scores for diet, nicotine exposure, blood glucose, and blood pressure.
“These data represent the first look at the cardiovascular health of the U.S. population using the AHA’s new Life’s Essential 8 scoring algorithm,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.
“Life’s Essential 8 is a major step forward in our ability to identify when cardiovascular health can be preserved and when it is suboptimal. It should energize efforts to improve cardiovascular health for all people and at every life stage,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added.
“Analyses like this can help policymakers, communities, clinicians, and the public to understand the opportunities to intervene to improve and maintain optimal cardiovascular health across the life course,” he said.
This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CIRCULATION
Can bone density scans help predict dementia risk?
, new research suggests.
In an analysis of more than 900 study participants, women in their 70s with more advanced abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) seen on lateral spine images during dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) had a two- to fourfold higher risk for late-life dementia than those with low AAC.
This finding was independent of cardiovascular risk factors and apolipoprotein E (APOE ) genotype.
“While these results are exciting, we now need to undertake further large screening studies in older men and women using this approach to show that the findings are generalizable to older men and can identify people with greater cognitive decline,” coinvestigator Marc Sim, PhD, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia, said in an interview.
“This will hopefully open the door to studies of early disease-modifying interventions,” Sim said.
The findings were published online in The Lancet Regional Health – Western Pacific.
AAC and cognition
Late-life dementia occurring after age 80 is increasingly common because of both vascular and nonvascular risk factors.
Two recent studies in middle-aged and older men and women showed that AAC identified on bone densitometry was associated with poorer cognition, suggesting it may be related to cognitive decline and increased dementia risk.
This provided the rationale for the current study, Dr. Sim noted.
The researchers assessed AAC using DXA lateral spine images captured in the late 1990s in a prospective cohort of 958 older women who were participating in an osteoporosis study.
AAC was classified into established low, moderate, and extensive categories. At baseline, all women were aged 70 and older, and 45% had low AAC, 36% had moderate AAC, and 19% had extensive AAC.
Over 14.5 years, 150 women (15.7%) had a late-life hospitalization and/or died.
Improved risk prediction
Results showed that, compared with women who had low AAC, women with moderate and extensive AAC were more likely to experience late-life dementia hospitalization (9.3% low, 15.5% moderate, and 18.3% extensive) and death (2.8%, 8.3%, and 9.4%, respectively).
After multivariable adjustment, women with moderate AAC had a two- and threefold increased relative risk for late-life dementia hospitalization or death, compared with their peers who had low AAC.
Women with extensive AAC had a two- and fourfold increase in the adjusted relative risk for late-life dementia hospitalization or death.
“To our knowledge this is the first time it has been shown that AAC from these scans is related to late-life dementia,” Dr. Sim said.
“We demonstrated that AAC improved risk prediction in addition to cardiovascular risk factors and APOE genotype, a genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease, the major form of dementia,” he added.
Dr. Sim noted “these additional lateral spine images” can be taken at the same time that hip and spine bone density tests are done.
“This provides an opportunity to identify AAC in large numbers of people,” he said.
He cautioned, however, that further studies with detailed dementia-related phenotypes, brain imaging, and measures of cognition are needed to confirm whether AAC will add value to dementia risk prediction.
‘Not surprising’
Commenting on the findings for this article, Claire Sexton, DPhil, senior director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, Chicago, noted that AAC is a marker of atherosclerosis and is associated with vascular health outcomes.
Therefore, it is “not surprising it would be associated with dementia too. There’s been previous research linking atherosclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Sexton said.
“What’s novel about this research is that it’s looking at AAC specifically, which can be identified through a relatively simple test that is already in widespread use,” she added.
Dr. Sexton noted that “much more research” is now needed in larger, more diverse populations in order to better understand the link between AAC and dementia – and whether bone density testing may be an appropriate dementia-screening tool.
“The good news is vascular conditions like atherosclerosis can be managed through lifestyle changes like eating a healthy diet and getting regular exercise. And research tells us what’s good for the heart is good for the brain,” Dr. Sexton said.
The study was funded by Kidney Health Australia, Healthway Health Promotion Foundation of Western Australia, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital Research Advisory Committee Grant, and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Sim and Dr. Sexton have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests.
In an analysis of more than 900 study participants, women in their 70s with more advanced abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) seen on lateral spine images during dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) had a two- to fourfold higher risk for late-life dementia than those with low AAC.
This finding was independent of cardiovascular risk factors and apolipoprotein E (APOE ) genotype.
“While these results are exciting, we now need to undertake further large screening studies in older men and women using this approach to show that the findings are generalizable to older men and can identify people with greater cognitive decline,” coinvestigator Marc Sim, PhD, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia, said in an interview.
“This will hopefully open the door to studies of early disease-modifying interventions,” Sim said.
The findings were published online in The Lancet Regional Health – Western Pacific.
AAC and cognition
Late-life dementia occurring after age 80 is increasingly common because of both vascular and nonvascular risk factors.
Two recent studies in middle-aged and older men and women showed that AAC identified on bone densitometry was associated with poorer cognition, suggesting it may be related to cognitive decline and increased dementia risk.
This provided the rationale for the current study, Dr. Sim noted.
The researchers assessed AAC using DXA lateral spine images captured in the late 1990s in a prospective cohort of 958 older women who were participating in an osteoporosis study.
AAC was classified into established low, moderate, and extensive categories. At baseline, all women were aged 70 and older, and 45% had low AAC, 36% had moderate AAC, and 19% had extensive AAC.
Over 14.5 years, 150 women (15.7%) had a late-life hospitalization and/or died.
Improved risk prediction
Results showed that, compared with women who had low AAC, women with moderate and extensive AAC were more likely to experience late-life dementia hospitalization (9.3% low, 15.5% moderate, and 18.3% extensive) and death (2.8%, 8.3%, and 9.4%, respectively).
After multivariable adjustment, women with moderate AAC had a two- and threefold increased relative risk for late-life dementia hospitalization or death, compared with their peers who had low AAC.
Women with extensive AAC had a two- and fourfold increase in the adjusted relative risk for late-life dementia hospitalization or death.
“To our knowledge this is the first time it has been shown that AAC from these scans is related to late-life dementia,” Dr. Sim said.
“We demonstrated that AAC improved risk prediction in addition to cardiovascular risk factors and APOE genotype, a genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease, the major form of dementia,” he added.
Dr. Sim noted “these additional lateral spine images” can be taken at the same time that hip and spine bone density tests are done.
“This provides an opportunity to identify AAC in large numbers of people,” he said.
He cautioned, however, that further studies with detailed dementia-related phenotypes, brain imaging, and measures of cognition are needed to confirm whether AAC will add value to dementia risk prediction.
‘Not surprising’
Commenting on the findings for this article, Claire Sexton, DPhil, senior director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, Chicago, noted that AAC is a marker of atherosclerosis and is associated with vascular health outcomes.
Therefore, it is “not surprising it would be associated with dementia too. There’s been previous research linking atherosclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Sexton said.
“What’s novel about this research is that it’s looking at AAC specifically, which can be identified through a relatively simple test that is already in widespread use,” she added.
Dr. Sexton noted that “much more research” is now needed in larger, more diverse populations in order to better understand the link between AAC and dementia – and whether bone density testing may be an appropriate dementia-screening tool.
“The good news is vascular conditions like atherosclerosis can be managed through lifestyle changes like eating a healthy diet and getting regular exercise. And research tells us what’s good for the heart is good for the brain,” Dr. Sexton said.
The study was funded by Kidney Health Australia, Healthway Health Promotion Foundation of Western Australia, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital Research Advisory Committee Grant, and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Sim and Dr. Sexton have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests.
In an analysis of more than 900 study participants, women in their 70s with more advanced abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) seen on lateral spine images during dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) had a two- to fourfold higher risk for late-life dementia than those with low AAC.
This finding was independent of cardiovascular risk factors and apolipoprotein E (APOE ) genotype.
“While these results are exciting, we now need to undertake further large screening studies in older men and women using this approach to show that the findings are generalizable to older men and can identify people with greater cognitive decline,” coinvestigator Marc Sim, PhD, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia, said in an interview.
“This will hopefully open the door to studies of early disease-modifying interventions,” Sim said.
The findings were published online in The Lancet Regional Health – Western Pacific.
AAC and cognition
Late-life dementia occurring after age 80 is increasingly common because of both vascular and nonvascular risk factors.
Two recent studies in middle-aged and older men and women showed that AAC identified on bone densitometry was associated with poorer cognition, suggesting it may be related to cognitive decline and increased dementia risk.
This provided the rationale for the current study, Dr. Sim noted.
The researchers assessed AAC using DXA lateral spine images captured in the late 1990s in a prospective cohort of 958 older women who were participating in an osteoporosis study.
AAC was classified into established low, moderate, and extensive categories. At baseline, all women were aged 70 and older, and 45% had low AAC, 36% had moderate AAC, and 19% had extensive AAC.
Over 14.5 years, 150 women (15.7%) had a late-life hospitalization and/or died.
Improved risk prediction
Results showed that, compared with women who had low AAC, women with moderate and extensive AAC were more likely to experience late-life dementia hospitalization (9.3% low, 15.5% moderate, and 18.3% extensive) and death (2.8%, 8.3%, and 9.4%, respectively).
After multivariable adjustment, women with moderate AAC had a two- and threefold increased relative risk for late-life dementia hospitalization or death, compared with their peers who had low AAC.
Women with extensive AAC had a two- and fourfold increase in the adjusted relative risk for late-life dementia hospitalization or death.
“To our knowledge this is the first time it has been shown that AAC from these scans is related to late-life dementia,” Dr. Sim said.
“We demonstrated that AAC improved risk prediction in addition to cardiovascular risk factors and APOE genotype, a genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease, the major form of dementia,” he added.
Dr. Sim noted “these additional lateral spine images” can be taken at the same time that hip and spine bone density tests are done.
“This provides an opportunity to identify AAC in large numbers of people,” he said.
He cautioned, however, that further studies with detailed dementia-related phenotypes, brain imaging, and measures of cognition are needed to confirm whether AAC will add value to dementia risk prediction.
‘Not surprising’
Commenting on the findings for this article, Claire Sexton, DPhil, senior director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, Chicago, noted that AAC is a marker of atherosclerosis and is associated with vascular health outcomes.
Therefore, it is “not surprising it would be associated with dementia too. There’s been previous research linking atherosclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Sexton said.
“What’s novel about this research is that it’s looking at AAC specifically, which can be identified through a relatively simple test that is already in widespread use,” she added.
Dr. Sexton noted that “much more research” is now needed in larger, more diverse populations in order to better understand the link between AAC and dementia – and whether bone density testing may be an appropriate dementia-screening tool.
“The good news is vascular conditions like atherosclerosis can be managed through lifestyle changes like eating a healthy diet and getting regular exercise. And research tells us what’s good for the heart is good for the brain,” Dr. Sexton said.
The study was funded by Kidney Health Australia, Healthway Health Promotion Foundation of Western Australia, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital Research Advisory Committee Grant, and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Sim and Dr. Sexton have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET REGIONAL HEALTH – WESTERN PACIFIC
CBT may improve comorbid posttraumatic headache, PTSD
Results from a randomized clinical trial of almost 200 military veterans showed that, compared with usual care, CBT for headache led to significant improvement in both headache disability and PTSD symptoms. Cognitive-processing therapy (CPT) also led to significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, but it did not improve headache disability.
Lead author Donald McGeary, PhD, department of rehabilitation medicine, the University of Texas Health Science Center,San Antonio, noted the improvements shown in headache disability after CBT were likely caused by its building of patients’ confidence that they could control or manage their headaches themselves.
That sense of control was key to helping patients “get their lives back. If you can improve a person’s belief that they can control their headache, they function better,” Dr. McGeary said in a news release.
The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
Signature wounds
Both mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) and PTSD are signature wounds of post-9/11 military conflicts. The two conditions commonly occur together and can harm quality of life and functioning, the investigators noted. Following mild TBI, many veterans experience persistent posttraumatic headache, which often co-occurs with PTSD.
To gauge the impact of CBTs for this patient population, researchers recruited 193 post-9/11 combat veterans (mean age, 39.7 years) with clinically significant PTSD symptoms and posttraumatic headache that had persisted more than 3 months after TBI. Of these, 167 were men.
All participants were receiving care at the Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center of the South Texas Veterans Health Care System in Houston.
They were randomly allocated to undergo 8 sessions of manualized CBT for headache, 12 sessions of manualized CPT for PTSD, or usual headache treatment.
CBT for headache uses CBT concepts to reduce headache disability and improve mood – and includes key components, such as relaxation, setting goals for activities patients want to resume, and planning for those situations.
CPT is a leading psychotherapy for PTSD. It teaches patients how to evaluate and change upsetting and maladaptive thoughts related to their trauma. The idea is that, by changing thoughts, patients can change the way they feel.
Treatment as usual was consistent with multidisciplinary treatment in a large Veterans Affairs multiple-trauma center and could include pharmacotherapies, physical and occupational therapies, pain medications, acupuncture, and massage.
The coprimary outcomes were headache-related disability on the six-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and PTSD symptom severity on the PTSD Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (PCL-5), assessed from end of treatment to 6 months post treatment.
At baseline, all participants reported severe headache-related disability (mean HIT-6 score, 65.8 points) and severe PTSD symptoms (mean PCL-5 score, 48.4 points).
Significant improvement
Compared with usual care, CBT for headache led to significant improvement in headache disability (posttreatment mean change in HIT-6 score, –3.4 points; P < .01) and PTSD symptoms (posttreatment change in PCL-5, –6.5 points; P = .04).
CPT also led to significant improvement in PTSD symptoms (8.9 points lower on the PCL-5 after treatment; P = .01), but it had only a modest effect on headache disability (1.4 points lower after treatment; P = .21).
“This was a surprise,” Dr. McGeary said. “If theories about PTSD driving posttraumatic headache are correct, you’d expect CPT to help both PTSD and headache. Our findings call that into question.”
Despite improvements in headache disability, CBT for headache did not significantly reduce headache frequency or intensity.
The researchers are now hoping to replicate their findings in a larger trial at multiple military and VA sites around the United States.
“We need more women, more racial and ethnic diversity, veterans as well as active military of different branches with varying comorbidities in different geographic regions attached to different hospitals and medical systems, because we’re comparing to usual care,” Dr. McGeary said.
A step forward
Commenting on the study, retired Col. Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, chair of psychiatry, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, said she was “pleased” to see that this study was conducted and that she was pleased with the results.
“It’s been 20 years since 9/11, and wars are pretty much forgotten, but people are still suffering from the effects of traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress disorder. These are not conditions that go away quickly or lightly. They do take work,” said Dr. Ritchie, who was not involved with the research.
Finding therapies besides medication that are helpful is “good and is a step forward. The more alternatives we have, the better,” she concluded.
The study was supported in part by the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. McGeary and Dr. Ritchie have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Results from a randomized clinical trial of almost 200 military veterans showed that, compared with usual care, CBT for headache led to significant improvement in both headache disability and PTSD symptoms. Cognitive-processing therapy (CPT) also led to significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, but it did not improve headache disability.
Lead author Donald McGeary, PhD, department of rehabilitation medicine, the University of Texas Health Science Center,San Antonio, noted the improvements shown in headache disability after CBT were likely caused by its building of patients’ confidence that they could control or manage their headaches themselves.
That sense of control was key to helping patients “get their lives back. If you can improve a person’s belief that they can control their headache, they function better,” Dr. McGeary said in a news release.
The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
Signature wounds
Both mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) and PTSD are signature wounds of post-9/11 military conflicts. The two conditions commonly occur together and can harm quality of life and functioning, the investigators noted. Following mild TBI, many veterans experience persistent posttraumatic headache, which often co-occurs with PTSD.
To gauge the impact of CBTs for this patient population, researchers recruited 193 post-9/11 combat veterans (mean age, 39.7 years) with clinically significant PTSD symptoms and posttraumatic headache that had persisted more than 3 months after TBI. Of these, 167 were men.
All participants were receiving care at the Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center of the South Texas Veterans Health Care System in Houston.
They were randomly allocated to undergo 8 sessions of manualized CBT for headache, 12 sessions of manualized CPT for PTSD, or usual headache treatment.
CBT for headache uses CBT concepts to reduce headache disability and improve mood – and includes key components, such as relaxation, setting goals for activities patients want to resume, and planning for those situations.
CPT is a leading psychotherapy for PTSD. It teaches patients how to evaluate and change upsetting and maladaptive thoughts related to their trauma. The idea is that, by changing thoughts, patients can change the way they feel.
Treatment as usual was consistent with multidisciplinary treatment in a large Veterans Affairs multiple-trauma center and could include pharmacotherapies, physical and occupational therapies, pain medications, acupuncture, and massage.
The coprimary outcomes were headache-related disability on the six-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and PTSD symptom severity on the PTSD Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (PCL-5), assessed from end of treatment to 6 months post treatment.
At baseline, all participants reported severe headache-related disability (mean HIT-6 score, 65.8 points) and severe PTSD symptoms (mean PCL-5 score, 48.4 points).
Significant improvement
Compared with usual care, CBT for headache led to significant improvement in headache disability (posttreatment mean change in HIT-6 score, –3.4 points; P < .01) and PTSD symptoms (posttreatment change in PCL-5, –6.5 points; P = .04).
CPT also led to significant improvement in PTSD symptoms (8.9 points lower on the PCL-5 after treatment; P = .01), but it had only a modest effect on headache disability (1.4 points lower after treatment; P = .21).
“This was a surprise,” Dr. McGeary said. “If theories about PTSD driving posttraumatic headache are correct, you’d expect CPT to help both PTSD and headache. Our findings call that into question.”
Despite improvements in headache disability, CBT for headache did not significantly reduce headache frequency or intensity.
The researchers are now hoping to replicate their findings in a larger trial at multiple military and VA sites around the United States.
“We need more women, more racial and ethnic diversity, veterans as well as active military of different branches with varying comorbidities in different geographic regions attached to different hospitals and medical systems, because we’re comparing to usual care,” Dr. McGeary said.
A step forward
Commenting on the study, retired Col. Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, chair of psychiatry, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, said she was “pleased” to see that this study was conducted and that she was pleased with the results.
“It’s been 20 years since 9/11, and wars are pretty much forgotten, but people are still suffering from the effects of traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress disorder. These are not conditions that go away quickly or lightly. They do take work,” said Dr. Ritchie, who was not involved with the research.
Finding therapies besides medication that are helpful is “good and is a step forward. The more alternatives we have, the better,” she concluded.
The study was supported in part by the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. McGeary and Dr. Ritchie have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Results from a randomized clinical trial of almost 200 military veterans showed that, compared with usual care, CBT for headache led to significant improvement in both headache disability and PTSD symptoms. Cognitive-processing therapy (CPT) also led to significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, but it did not improve headache disability.
Lead author Donald McGeary, PhD, department of rehabilitation medicine, the University of Texas Health Science Center,San Antonio, noted the improvements shown in headache disability after CBT were likely caused by its building of patients’ confidence that they could control or manage their headaches themselves.
That sense of control was key to helping patients “get their lives back. If you can improve a person’s belief that they can control their headache, they function better,” Dr. McGeary said in a news release.
The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
Signature wounds
Both mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) and PTSD are signature wounds of post-9/11 military conflicts. The two conditions commonly occur together and can harm quality of life and functioning, the investigators noted. Following mild TBI, many veterans experience persistent posttraumatic headache, which often co-occurs with PTSD.
To gauge the impact of CBTs for this patient population, researchers recruited 193 post-9/11 combat veterans (mean age, 39.7 years) with clinically significant PTSD symptoms and posttraumatic headache that had persisted more than 3 months after TBI. Of these, 167 were men.
All participants were receiving care at the Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center of the South Texas Veterans Health Care System in Houston.
They were randomly allocated to undergo 8 sessions of manualized CBT for headache, 12 sessions of manualized CPT for PTSD, or usual headache treatment.
CBT for headache uses CBT concepts to reduce headache disability and improve mood – and includes key components, such as relaxation, setting goals for activities patients want to resume, and planning for those situations.
CPT is a leading psychotherapy for PTSD. It teaches patients how to evaluate and change upsetting and maladaptive thoughts related to their trauma. The idea is that, by changing thoughts, patients can change the way they feel.
Treatment as usual was consistent with multidisciplinary treatment in a large Veterans Affairs multiple-trauma center and could include pharmacotherapies, physical and occupational therapies, pain medications, acupuncture, and massage.
The coprimary outcomes were headache-related disability on the six-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and PTSD symptom severity on the PTSD Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (PCL-5), assessed from end of treatment to 6 months post treatment.
At baseline, all participants reported severe headache-related disability (mean HIT-6 score, 65.8 points) and severe PTSD symptoms (mean PCL-5 score, 48.4 points).
Significant improvement
Compared with usual care, CBT for headache led to significant improvement in headache disability (posttreatment mean change in HIT-6 score, –3.4 points; P < .01) and PTSD symptoms (posttreatment change in PCL-5, –6.5 points; P = .04).
CPT also led to significant improvement in PTSD symptoms (8.9 points lower on the PCL-5 after treatment; P = .01), but it had only a modest effect on headache disability (1.4 points lower after treatment; P = .21).
“This was a surprise,” Dr. McGeary said. “If theories about PTSD driving posttraumatic headache are correct, you’d expect CPT to help both PTSD and headache. Our findings call that into question.”
Despite improvements in headache disability, CBT for headache did not significantly reduce headache frequency or intensity.
The researchers are now hoping to replicate their findings in a larger trial at multiple military and VA sites around the United States.
“We need more women, more racial and ethnic diversity, veterans as well as active military of different branches with varying comorbidities in different geographic regions attached to different hospitals and medical systems, because we’re comparing to usual care,” Dr. McGeary said.
A step forward
Commenting on the study, retired Col. Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, chair of psychiatry, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, said she was “pleased” to see that this study was conducted and that she was pleased with the results.
“It’s been 20 years since 9/11, and wars are pretty much forgotten, but people are still suffering from the effects of traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress disorder. These are not conditions that go away quickly or lightly. They do take work,” said Dr. Ritchie, who was not involved with the research.
Finding therapies besides medication that are helpful is “good and is a step forward. The more alternatives we have, the better,” she concluded.
The study was supported in part by the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. McGeary and Dr. Ritchie have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NEUROLOGY
Impact of eliminating cost-sharing on follow-up colonoscopy mixed
Oregon and Kentucky recently enacted policies to eliminate financial disincentives that may have deterred people from undergoing a follow-up colonoscopy after a positive result on a noninvasive screening test for colorectal cancer (CRC).
A new analysis shows that the impact has been mixed. The policies led to significantly increased overall CRC screening and use of noninvasive testing in Oregon but not Kentucky.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
The Affordable Care Act mandates that several CRC screening tests be covered without cost-sharing for people at average risk for CRC. However, lingering cost barriers remain for some people who have a positive initial screening test result and who need follow-up colonoscopy.
This led Kentucky in 2016 and Oregon in 2017 to enact policies that eliminate cost-sharing. Earlier this year, federal guidance eliminated cost-sharing for colonoscopies following noninvasive CRC screening tests for commercial insurers, and a similar policy is under consideration for Medicare.
For their study, Douglas Barthold, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues used claims data to evaluate CRC screening rates in Oregon and Kentucky, compared with rates in neighboring states that do not have cost-sharing policies.
The sample included more than 1.2 million individuals aged 45-64 living in Oregon, Kentucky, and nearby states from 2012 to 2019. Overall, about 15% of the cohort underwent any CRC screening; 8% underwent colonoscopy.
After the Oregon policy that eliminated cost-sharing went into effect, Oregonians had 6% higher odds of receiving any CRC screening (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.06; P = .03) and 35% higher odds of undergoing an initial noninvasive test (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.58-0.73; P < .001), compared with neighboring states that did not implement a similar policy.
But there were no significant differences in total CRC screening use in Kentucky after policy implementation compared with neighboring states.
The odds of receiving a colonoscopy conditional on undergoing noninvasive CRC screening were not statistically different in Oregon or Kentucky, compared with neighboring states.
“These findings suggest that the enactment of policies that remove financial barriers is merely one of many elements (e.g., health literacy, outreach, transportation, access to care) that may help to achieve desired cancer screening outcomes,” wrote Dr. Barthold and colleagues.
The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Barthold reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Oregon and Kentucky recently enacted policies to eliminate financial disincentives that may have deterred people from undergoing a follow-up colonoscopy after a positive result on a noninvasive screening test for colorectal cancer (CRC).
A new analysis shows that the impact has been mixed. The policies led to significantly increased overall CRC screening and use of noninvasive testing in Oregon but not Kentucky.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
The Affordable Care Act mandates that several CRC screening tests be covered without cost-sharing for people at average risk for CRC. However, lingering cost barriers remain for some people who have a positive initial screening test result and who need follow-up colonoscopy.
This led Kentucky in 2016 and Oregon in 2017 to enact policies that eliminate cost-sharing. Earlier this year, federal guidance eliminated cost-sharing for colonoscopies following noninvasive CRC screening tests for commercial insurers, and a similar policy is under consideration for Medicare.
For their study, Douglas Barthold, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues used claims data to evaluate CRC screening rates in Oregon and Kentucky, compared with rates in neighboring states that do not have cost-sharing policies.
The sample included more than 1.2 million individuals aged 45-64 living in Oregon, Kentucky, and nearby states from 2012 to 2019. Overall, about 15% of the cohort underwent any CRC screening; 8% underwent colonoscopy.
After the Oregon policy that eliminated cost-sharing went into effect, Oregonians had 6% higher odds of receiving any CRC screening (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.06; P = .03) and 35% higher odds of undergoing an initial noninvasive test (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.58-0.73; P < .001), compared with neighboring states that did not implement a similar policy.
But there were no significant differences in total CRC screening use in Kentucky after policy implementation compared with neighboring states.
The odds of receiving a colonoscopy conditional on undergoing noninvasive CRC screening were not statistically different in Oregon or Kentucky, compared with neighboring states.
“These findings suggest that the enactment of policies that remove financial barriers is merely one of many elements (e.g., health literacy, outreach, transportation, access to care) that may help to achieve desired cancer screening outcomes,” wrote Dr. Barthold and colleagues.
The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Barthold reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Oregon and Kentucky recently enacted policies to eliminate financial disincentives that may have deterred people from undergoing a follow-up colonoscopy after a positive result on a noninvasive screening test for colorectal cancer (CRC).
A new analysis shows that the impact has been mixed. The policies led to significantly increased overall CRC screening and use of noninvasive testing in Oregon but not Kentucky.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
The Affordable Care Act mandates that several CRC screening tests be covered without cost-sharing for people at average risk for CRC. However, lingering cost barriers remain for some people who have a positive initial screening test result and who need follow-up colonoscopy.
This led Kentucky in 2016 and Oregon in 2017 to enact policies that eliminate cost-sharing. Earlier this year, federal guidance eliminated cost-sharing for colonoscopies following noninvasive CRC screening tests for commercial insurers, and a similar policy is under consideration for Medicare.
For their study, Douglas Barthold, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues used claims data to evaluate CRC screening rates in Oregon and Kentucky, compared with rates in neighboring states that do not have cost-sharing policies.
The sample included more than 1.2 million individuals aged 45-64 living in Oregon, Kentucky, and nearby states from 2012 to 2019. Overall, about 15% of the cohort underwent any CRC screening; 8% underwent colonoscopy.
After the Oregon policy that eliminated cost-sharing went into effect, Oregonians had 6% higher odds of receiving any CRC screening (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.06; P = .03) and 35% higher odds of undergoing an initial noninvasive test (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.58-0.73; P < .001), compared with neighboring states that did not implement a similar policy.
But there were no significant differences in total CRC screening use in Kentucky after policy implementation compared with neighboring states.
The odds of receiving a colonoscopy conditional on undergoing noninvasive CRC screening were not statistically different in Oregon or Kentucky, compared with neighboring states.
“These findings suggest that the enactment of policies that remove financial barriers is merely one of many elements (e.g., health literacy, outreach, transportation, access to care) that may help to achieve desired cancer screening outcomes,” wrote Dr. Barthold and colleagues.
The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Barthold reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Best strategy to prevent schizophrenia relapse yields unexpected results
A large meta-analysis sheds light on the best antipsychotic maintenance strategy to prevent relapse in clinically stable schizophrenia – with some unexpected results that have potential implications for changes to current guidelines.
Consistent with the researchers’ hypothesis, continuing antipsychotic treatment at the standard dose, switching to another antipsychotic, and reducing the dose were all significantly more effective than stopping antipsychotic treatment in preventing relapse.
However, contrary to the researchers’ hypothesis, which was based on current literature, switching to another antipsychotic was just as effective as continuing an antipsychotic at the standard dose.
Switching to another antipsychotic “does not increase the risk of relapse. This result was not expected, as previous literature suggested otherwise,” Giovanni Ostuzzi, MD, PhD, with University of Verona (Italy) said in an interview.
“On the other hand, reducing the dose below the standard range used in the acute phase carries a tangible risk of relapse, and should be limited to selected cases, for example those where the risk of withdrawing the treatment altogether is particularly high,” Dr. Ostuzzi said.
“These results should inform evidence-based guidelines, considering that clinical practices for relapse prevention are still heterogeneous and too often guided by clinical common sense only,” he added.
The study was published online in Lancet Psychiatry.
Guideline update warranted
The researchers evaluated the effect of different antipsychotic treatment strategies on risk for relapse in a network meta-analysis of 98 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving nearly 14,000 patients.
Compared to stopping the antipsychotic, all continuation strategies were effective in preventing relapse.
The risk for relapse was largely (and similarly) reduced when continuing the antipsychotic at the standard dose or switching to a different antipsychotic (relative risk, 0.37 and RR, 0.44, respectively), the researchers found.
Both strategies outperformed the strategy of reducing the antipsychotic dose below the standard (RR, 0.68), which was inferior to the other two strategies.
For every three patients continuing an antipsychotic at standard doses, one additional patient will avoid relapse, compared with patients stopping an antipsychotic, “which can be regarded as a large-effect magnitude according to commonly used thresholds and results from RCTs in acute schizophrenia,” the researchers write.
The number needed to treat (NNT) slightly increased to about 3.5 for patients who switched antipsychotic treatment – “still regarded as a large-effect magnitude,” they note.
“Currently, most psychiatrists are aware of the benefits of continuing antipsychotics in clinically stable individuals. However, they might face the necessity of changing the ongoing treatment strategy, generally because of burdening side effects, poor adherence, or both,” said Dr. Ostuzzi.
the investigators write.
More to the story
In an accompanying editorial, Marieke J.H. Begemann, PhD, University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands) and colleagues note the large number of patients included in the analysis provide “great credibility” to the findings, which are “trustworthy and important, yet only tell part of the story.”
They note that, while tapering information was often missing, antipsychotic discontinuation was probably abrupt for about two-thirds of the included studies.
“The issue of slow versus swift tapering is not yet settled, as there is a scarcity of RCTs that provide very gradual tapering over several months,” the editorialists write.
To fill this gap, several randomized trials are now in progress to specifically address the effects of gradual tapering or discontinuation vs. antipsychotic maintenance treatment in clinically stable schizophrenia.
“Time is pressing, as patients, their families, and clinicians need evidence-based data to weigh up the risks and benefits of maintaining, switching, or reducing medication with respect to a range of outcomes that are important to them, including social functioning, cognition, physical health, sexual health, and quality of life, thus going well beyond relapse prevention,” the editorialists note.
“Schizophrenia-spectrum disorders are heterogeneous with a largely unpredictable course, and we have known for a long time that a substantial proportion of patients who experienced a first psychosis can manage without antipsychotic medication. The challenge for future research is therefore to identify this subgroup on the basis of individual characteristics and guide them in tapering medication safely,” they add.
The study had no funding source. Dr. Ostuzzi reports no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article. The editorialists have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A large meta-analysis sheds light on the best antipsychotic maintenance strategy to prevent relapse in clinically stable schizophrenia – with some unexpected results that have potential implications for changes to current guidelines.
Consistent with the researchers’ hypothesis, continuing antipsychotic treatment at the standard dose, switching to another antipsychotic, and reducing the dose were all significantly more effective than stopping antipsychotic treatment in preventing relapse.
However, contrary to the researchers’ hypothesis, which was based on current literature, switching to another antipsychotic was just as effective as continuing an antipsychotic at the standard dose.
Switching to another antipsychotic “does not increase the risk of relapse. This result was not expected, as previous literature suggested otherwise,” Giovanni Ostuzzi, MD, PhD, with University of Verona (Italy) said in an interview.
“On the other hand, reducing the dose below the standard range used in the acute phase carries a tangible risk of relapse, and should be limited to selected cases, for example those where the risk of withdrawing the treatment altogether is particularly high,” Dr. Ostuzzi said.
“These results should inform evidence-based guidelines, considering that clinical practices for relapse prevention are still heterogeneous and too often guided by clinical common sense only,” he added.
The study was published online in Lancet Psychiatry.
Guideline update warranted
The researchers evaluated the effect of different antipsychotic treatment strategies on risk for relapse in a network meta-analysis of 98 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving nearly 14,000 patients.
Compared to stopping the antipsychotic, all continuation strategies were effective in preventing relapse.
The risk for relapse was largely (and similarly) reduced when continuing the antipsychotic at the standard dose or switching to a different antipsychotic (relative risk, 0.37 and RR, 0.44, respectively), the researchers found.
Both strategies outperformed the strategy of reducing the antipsychotic dose below the standard (RR, 0.68), which was inferior to the other two strategies.
For every three patients continuing an antipsychotic at standard doses, one additional patient will avoid relapse, compared with patients stopping an antipsychotic, “which can be regarded as a large-effect magnitude according to commonly used thresholds and results from RCTs in acute schizophrenia,” the researchers write.
The number needed to treat (NNT) slightly increased to about 3.5 for patients who switched antipsychotic treatment – “still regarded as a large-effect magnitude,” they note.
“Currently, most psychiatrists are aware of the benefits of continuing antipsychotics in clinically stable individuals. However, they might face the necessity of changing the ongoing treatment strategy, generally because of burdening side effects, poor adherence, or both,” said Dr. Ostuzzi.
the investigators write.
More to the story
In an accompanying editorial, Marieke J.H. Begemann, PhD, University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands) and colleagues note the large number of patients included in the analysis provide “great credibility” to the findings, which are “trustworthy and important, yet only tell part of the story.”
They note that, while tapering information was often missing, antipsychotic discontinuation was probably abrupt for about two-thirds of the included studies.
“The issue of slow versus swift tapering is not yet settled, as there is a scarcity of RCTs that provide very gradual tapering over several months,” the editorialists write.
To fill this gap, several randomized trials are now in progress to specifically address the effects of gradual tapering or discontinuation vs. antipsychotic maintenance treatment in clinically stable schizophrenia.
“Time is pressing, as patients, their families, and clinicians need evidence-based data to weigh up the risks and benefits of maintaining, switching, or reducing medication with respect to a range of outcomes that are important to them, including social functioning, cognition, physical health, sexual health, and quality of life, thus going well beyond relapse prevention,” the editorialists note.
“Schizophrenia-spectrum disorders are heterogeneous with a largely unpredictable course, and we have known for a long time that a substantial proportion of patients who experienced a first psychosis can manage without antipsychotic medication. The challenge for future research is therefore to identify this subgroup on the basis of individual characteristics and guide them in tapering medication safely,” they add.
The study had no funding source. Dr. Ostuzzi reports no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article. The editorialists have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A large meta-analysis sheds light on the best antipsychotic maintenance strategy to prevent relapse in clinically stable schizophrenia – with some unexpected results that have potential implications for changes to current guidelines.
Consistent with the researchers’ hypothesis, continuing antipsychotic treatment at the standard dose, switching to another antipsychotic, and reducing the dose were all significantly more effective than stopping antipsychotic treatment in preventing relapse.
However, contrary to the researchers’ hypothesis, which was based on current literature, switching to another antipsychotic was just as effective as continuing an antipsychotic at the standard dose.
Switching to another antipsychotic “does not increase the risk of relapse. This result was not expected, as previous literature suggested otherwise,” Giovanni Ostuzzi, MD, PhD, with University of Verona (Italy) said in an interview.
“On the other hand, reducing the dose below the standard range used in the acute phase carries a tangible risk of relapse, and should be limited to selected cases, for example those where the risk of withdrawing the treatment altogether is particularly high,” Dr. Ostuzzi said.
“These results should inform evidence-based guidelines, considering that clinical practices for relapse prevention are still heterogeneous and too often guided by clinical common sense only,” he added.
The study was published online in Lancet Psychiatry.
Guideline update warranted
The researchers evaluated the effect of different antipsychotic treatment strategies on risk for relapse in a network meta-analysis of 98 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving nearly 14,000 patients.
Compared to stopping the antipsychotic, all continuation strategies were effective in preventing relapse.
The risk for relapse was largely (and similarly) reduced when continuing the antipsychotic at the standard dose or switching to a different antipsychotic (relative risk, 0.37 and RR, 0.44, respectively), the researchers found.
Both strategies outperformed the strategy of reducing the antipsychotic dose below the standard (RR, 0.68), which was inferior to the other two strategies.
For every three patients continuing an antipsychotic at standard doses, one additional patient will avoid relapse, compared with patients stopping an antipsychotic, “which can be regarded as a large-effect magnitude according to commonly used thresholds and results from RCTs in acute schizophrenia,” the researchers write.
The number needed to treat (NNT) slightly increased to about 3.5 for patients who switched antipsychotic treatment – “still regarded as a large-effect magnitude,” they note.
“Currently, most psychiatrists are aware of the benefits of continuing antipsychotics in clinically stable individuals. However, they might face the necessity of changing the ongoing treatment strategy, generally because of burdening side effects, poor adherence, or both,” said Dr. Ostuzzi.
the investigators write.
More to the story
In an accompanying editorial, Marieke J.H. Begemann, PhD, University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands) and colleagues note the large number of patients included in the analysis provide “great credibility” to the findings, which are “trustworthy and important, yet only tell part of the story.”
They note that, while tapering information was often missing, antipsychotic discontinuation was probably abrupt for about two-thirds of the included studies.
“The issue of slow versus swift tapering is not yet settled, as there is a scarcity of RCTs that provide very gradual tapering over several months,” the editorialists write.
To fill this gap, several randomized trials are now in progress to specifically address the effects of gradual tapering or discontinuation vs. antipsychotic maintenance treatment in clinically stable schizophrenia.
“Time is pressing, as patients, their families, and clinicians need evidence-based data to weigh up the risks and benefits of maintaining, switching, or reducing medication with respect to a range of outcomes that are important to them, including social functioning, cognition, physical health, sexual health, and quality of life, thus going well beyond relapse prevention,” the editorialists note.
“Schizophrenia-spectrum disorders are heterogeneous with a largely unpredictable course, and we have known for a long time that a substantial proportion of patients who experienced a first psychosis can manage without antipsychotic medication. The challenge for future research is therefore to identify this subgroup on the basis of individual characteristics and guide them in tapering medication safely,” they add.
The study had no funding source. Dr. Ostuzzi reports no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article. The editorialists have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET PSYCHIATRY
ACC/AHA issue clinical lexicon for complications of COVID-19
The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have jointly issued a comprehensive set of data standards to help clarify definitions of the cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV complications of COVID-19.
It’s the work of the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Data Standards and has been endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America and Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions.
There is increased importance to understanding the acute and long-term impact of COVID-19 on CV health, the writing group notes. Until now, however, there has not been “clarity or consensus” on definitions of CV conditions related to COVID-19, with different diagnostic terminologies being used for overlapping conditions, such as “myocardial injury,” “myocarditis,” “type Il myocardial infarction,” “stress cardiomyopathy,” and “inflammatory cardiomyopathy,” they point out.
“We, as a research community, did some things right and some things wrong surrounding the COVID pandemic,” Sandeep Das, MD, MPH, vice chair of the writing group, noted in an interview with this news organization.
“The things that we really did right is that everybody responded with enthusiasm, kind of all hands on deck with a massive crisis response, and that was fantastic,” Dr. Das said.
“However, because of the need to hurry, we didn’t structure and organize in the way that we typically would for something that was sort of a slow burn kind of problem rather than an emergency. One of the consequences of that was fragmentation of how things are collected, reported, et cetera, and that leads to confusion,” he added.
The report was published simultaneously June 23 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
A necessary but not glamorous project
The new data standards for COVID-19 will help standardize definitions and set the framework to capture and better understand how COVID-19 affects CV health.
“It wasn’t exactly a glamorous-type project but, at the same time, it’s super necessary to kind of get everybody on the same page and working together,” Dr. Das said.
Broad agreement on common vocabulary and definitions will help with efforts to pool or compare data from electronic health records, clinical registries, administrative datasets, and other databases, and determine whether these data apply to clinical practice and research endeavors, the writing group says.
They considered data elements relevant to the full range of care provided to COVID-19 patients in all care settings. Among the key items included in the document are:
- Case definitions for confirmed, probable, and suspected acute COVID-19, as well as postacute sequelae of COVID-19.
- Definitions for acute CV complications related to COVID-19, including acute myocardial injury, heart failure, shock, arrhythmia, thromboembolic complications, and .
- Data elements related to COVID-19 vaccination status, comorbidities, and preexisting CV conditions.
- Definitions for postacute CV sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection and long-term CV complications of COVID-19.
- Data elements for CV mortality during acute COVID-19.
- Data elements for non-CV complications to help document severity of illness and other competing diagnoses and complications that might affect CV outcomes.
- A list of symptoms and signs related to COVID-19 and CV complications.
- Data elements for diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for COVID-19 and CV conditions.
- A discussion of advanced therapies, including , extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and end-of-life management strategies.
These data standards will be useful for researchers, registry developers, and clinicians, and they are proposed as a framework for ICD-10 code development of COVID-19–related CV conditions, the writing group says.
The standards are also of “great importance” to patients, clinicians, investigators, scientists, administrators, public health officials, policymakers, and payers, the group says.
Dr. Das said that, although there is no formal plan in place to update the document, he could see sections that might be refined.
“For example, there’s a nice long list of all the various variants, and unfortunately, I suspect that that is going to change and evolve over time,” Dr. Das told this news organization.
“We tried very hard not to include things like specifying specific treatments so we didn’t get proscriptive. We wanted to make it descriptive, so hopefully it will stand the test of time pretty well,” he added.
This research had no commercial funding. The writing group has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have jointly issued a comprehensive set of data standards to help clarify definitions of the cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV complications of COVID-19.
It’s the work of the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Data Standards and has been endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America and Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions.
There is increased importance to understanding the acute and long-term impact of COVID-19 on CV health, the writing group notes. Until now, however, there has not been “clarity or consensus” on definitions of CV conditions related to COVID-19, with different diagnostic terminologies being used for overlapping conditions, such as “myocardial injury,” “myocarditis,” “type Il myocardial infarction,” “stress cardiomyopathy,” and “inflammatory cardiomyopathy,” they point out.
“We, as a research community, did some things right and some things wrong surrounding the COVID pandemic,” Sandeep Das, MD, MPH, vice chair of the writing group, noted in an interview with this news organization.
“The things that we really did right is that everybody responded with enthusiasm, kind of all hands on deck with a massive crisis response, and that was fantastic,” Dr. Das said.
“However, because of the need to hurry, we didn’t structure and organize in the way that we typically would for something that was sort of a slow burn kind of problem rather than an emergency. One of the consequences of that was fragmentation of how things are collected, reported, et cetera, and that leads to confusion,” he added.
The report was published simultaneously June 23 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
A necessary but not glamorous project
The new data standards for COVID-19 will help standardize definitions and set the framework to capture and better understand how COVID-19 affects CV health.
“It wasn’t exactly a glamorous-type project but, at the same time, it’s super necessary to kind of get everybody on the same page and working together,” Dr. Das said.
Broad agreement on common vocabulary and definitions will help with efforts to pool or compare data from electronic health records, clinical registries, administrative datasets, and other databases, and determine whether these data apply to clinical practice and research endeavors, the writing group says.
They considered data elements relevant to the full range of care provided to COVID-19 patients in all care settings. Among the key items included in the document are:
- Case definitions for confirmed, probable, and suspected acute COVID-19, as well as postacute sequelae of COVID-19.
- Definitions for acute CV complications related to COVID-19, including acute myocardial injury, heart failure, shock, arrhythmia, thromboembolic complications, and .
- Data elements related to COVID-19 vaccination status, comorbidities, and preexisting CV conditions.
- Definitions for postacute CV sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection and long-term CV complications of COVID-19.
- Data elements for CV mortality during acute COVID-19.
- Data elements for non-CV complications to help document severity of illness and other competing diagnoses and complications that might affect CV outcomes.
- A list of symptoms and signs related to COVID-19 and CV complications.
- Data elements for diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for COVID-19 and CV conditions.
- A discussion of advanced therapies, including , extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and end-of-life management strategies.
These data standards will be useful for researchers, registry developers, and clinicians, and they are proposed as a framework for ICD-10 code development of COVID-19–related CV conditions, the writing group says.
The standards are also of “great importance” to patients, clinicians, investigators, scientists, administrators, public health officials, policymakers, and payers, the group says.
Dr. Das said that, although there is no formal plan in place to update the document, he could see sections that might be refined.
“For example, there’s a nice long list of all the various variants, and unfortunately, I suspect that that is going to change and evolve over time,” Dr. Das told this news organization.
“We tried very hard not to include things like specifying specific treatments so we didn’t get proscriptive. We wanted to make it descriptive, so hopefully it will stand the test of time pretty well,” he added.
This research had no commercial funding. The writing group has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have jointly issued a comprehensive set of data standards to help clarify definitions of the cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV complications of COVID-19.
It’s the work of the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Data Standards and has been endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America and Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions.
There is increased importance to understanding the acute and long-term impact of COVID-19 on CV health, the writing group notes. Until now, however, there has not been “clarity or consensus” on definitions of CV conditions related to COVID-19, with different diagnostic terminologies being used for overlapping conditions, such as “myocardial injury,” “myocarditis,” “type Il myocardial infarction,” “stress cardiomyopathy,” and “inflammatory cardiomyopathy,” they point out.
“We, as a research community, did some things right and some things wrong surrounding the COVID pandemic,” Sandeep Das, MD, MPH, vice chair of the writing group, noted in an interview with this news organization.
“The things that we really did right is that everybody responded with enthusiasm, kind of all hands on deck with a massive crisis response, and that was fantastic,” Dr. Das said.
“However, because of the need to hurry, we didn’t structure and organize in the way that we typically would for something that was sort of a slow burn kind of problem rather than an emergency. One of the consequences of that was fragmentation of how things are collected, reported, et cetera, and that leads to confusion,” he added.
The report was published simultaneously June 23 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
A necessary but not glamorous project
The new data standards for COVID-19 will help standardize definitions and set the framework to capture and better understand how COVID-19 affects CV health.
“It wasn’t exactly a glamorous-type project but, at the same time, it’s super necessary to kind of get everybody on the same page and working together,” Dr. Das said.
Broad agreement on common vocabulary and definitions will help with efforts to pool or compare data from electronic health records, clinical registries, administrative datasets, and other databases, and determine whether these data apply to clinical practice and research endeavors, the writing group says.
They considered data elements relevant to the full range of care provided to COVID-19 patients in all care settings. Among the key items included in the document are:
- Case definitions for confirmed, probable, and suspected acute COVID-19, as well as postacute sequelae of COVID-19.
- Definitions for acute CV complications related to COVID-19, including acute myocardial injury, heart failure, shock, arrhythmia, thromboembolic complications, and .
- Data elements related to COVID-19 vaccination status, comorbidities, and preexisting CV conditions.
- Definitions for postacute CV sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection and long-term CV complications of COVID-19.
- Data elements for CV mortality during acute COVID-19.
- Data elements for non-CV complications to help document severity of illness and other competing diagnoses and complications that might affect CV outcomes.
- A list of symptoms and signs related to COVID-19 and CV complications.
- Data elements for diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for COVID-19 and CV conditions.
- A discussion of advanced therapies, including , extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and end-of-life management strategies.
These data standards will be useful for researchers, registry developers, and clinicians, and they are proposed as a framework for ICD-10 code development of COVID-19–related CV conditions, the writing group says.
The standards are also of “great importance” to patients, clinicians, investigators, scientists, administrators, public health officials, policymakers, and payers, the group says.
Dr. Das said that, although there is no formal plan in place to update the document, he could see sections that might be refined.
“For example, there’s a nice long list of all the various variants, and unfortunately, I suspect that that is going to change and evolve over time,” Dr. Das told this news organization.
“We tried very hard not to include things like specifying specific treatments so we didn’t get proscriptive. We wanted to make it descriptive, so hopefully it will stand the test of time pretty well,” he added.
This research had no commercial funding. The writing group has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
More evidence the flu vaccine may guard against Alzheimer’s
In a large propensity-matched cohort of older adults, those who had received at least one influenza inoculation were 40% less likely than unvaccinated peers to develop AD over the course of 4 years.
“Influenza infection can cause serious health complications, particularly in adults 65 and older. Our study’s findings – that vaccination against the flu virus may also reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia for at least a few years – adds to the already compelling reasons get the flu vaccine annually,” Avram Bukhbinder, MD, of the University of Texas, Houston, said in an interview.
The new findings support earlier work by the same researchers that also suggested a protective effect of flu vaccination on dementia risk.
The latest study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
40% lower risk
Prior studies have found a lower risk of dementia of any etiology following influenza vaccination in selected populations, including veterans and patients with serious chronic health conditions.
However, the effect of influenza vaccination on AD risk in a general cohort of older U.S. adults has not been characterized.
Dr. Bukhbinder and colleagues used claims data to create a propensity-matched cohort of 935,887 influenza-vaccinated adults and a like number of unvaccinated adults aged 65 and older.
The median age of the persons in the matched sample was 73.7 years, and 57% were women. All were free of dementia during the 6-year look-back study period.
During median follow-up of 46 months, 47,889 (5.1%) flu-vaccinated adults and 79,630 (8.5%) unvaccinated adults developed AD.
The risk of AD was 40% lower in the vaccinated group (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.61). The absolute risk reduction was 0.034 (95% CI, 0.033-0.035), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 29.4.
Mechanism unclear
“Our study does not address the mechanism(s) underlying the apparent effect of influenza vaccination on Alzheimer’s risk, but we look forward to future research investigating this important question,” Dr. Bukhbinder said.
“One possible mechanism is that, by helping to prevent or mitigate infection with the flu virus and the systemic inflammation that follows such an infection, the flu vaccine helps to decrease the systemic inflammation that may have otherwise occurred,” he explained.
It’s also possible that influenza vaccination may trigger non–influenza-specific changes in the immune system that help to reduce the damage caused by AD pathology, including amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, he said.
“For example, the influenza vaccine may alter the brain’s immune cells such that they are better at clearing Alzheimer’s pathologies, an effect that has been seen in mice, or it may reprogram these immune cells to respond to Alzheimer’s pathologies in ways that are less likely to damage nearby healthy brain cells, or it may do both,” Dr. Bukhbinder noted.
Alzheimer’s expert weighs in
Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said this study “suggests that flu vaccination may be valuable for maintaining cognition and memory as we age. This is even more relevant today in the COVID-19 environment.
“It is too early to tell if getting flu vaccine, on its own, can reduce risk of Alzheimer’s. More research is needed to understand the biological mechanisms behind the results in this study,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview.
“For example, it is possible that people who are getting vaccinated also take better care of their health in other ways, and these things add up to lower risk of Alzheimer’s and other dementias,” she noted.
“It is also possible that there are issues related to unequal access and/or vaccine hesitancy and how this may influence the study population and the research results,” Dr. Snyder said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Bukhbinder and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a large propensity-matched cohort of older adults, those who had received at least one influenza inoculation were 40% less likely than unvaccinated peers to develop AD over the course of 4 years.
“Influenza infection can cause serious health complications, particularly in adults 65 and older. Our study’s findings – that vaccination against the flu virus may also reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia for at least a few years – adds to the already compelling reasons get the flu vaccine annually,” Avram Bukhbinder, MD, of the University of Texas, Houston, said in an interview.
The new findings support earlier work by the same researchers that also suggested a protective effect of flu vaccination on dementia risk.
The latest study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
40% lower risk
Prior studies have found a lower risk of dementia of any etiology following influenza vaccination in selected populations, including veterans and patients with serious chronic health conditions.
However, the effect of influenza vaccination on AD risk in a general cohort of older U.S. adults has not been characterized.
Dr. Bukhbinder and colleagues used claims data to create a propensity-matched cohort of 935,887 influenza-vaccinated adults and a like number of unvaccinated adults aged 65 and older.
The median age of the persons in the matched sample was 73.7 years, and 57% were women. All were free of dementia during the 6-year look-back study period.
During median follow-up of 46 months, 47,889 (5.1%) flu-vaccinated adults and 79,630 (8.5%) unvaccinated adults developed AD.
The risk of AD was 40% lower in the vaccinated group (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.61). The absolute risk reduction was 0.034 (95% CI, 0.033-0.035), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 29.4.
Mechanism unclear
“Our study does not address the mechanism(s) underlying the apparent effect of influenza vaccination on Alzheimer’s risk, but we look forward to future research investigating this important question,” Dr. Bukhbinder said.
“One possible mechanism is that, by helping to prevent or mitigate infection with the flu virus and the systemic inflammation that follows such an infection, the flu vaccine helps to decrease the systemic inflammation that may have otherwise occurred,” he explained.
It’s also possible that influenza vaccination may trigger non–influenza-specific changes in the immune system that help to reduce the damage caused by AD pathology, including amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, he said.
“For example, the influenza vaccine may alter the brain’s immune cells such that they are better at clearing Alzheimer’s pathologies, an effect that has been seen in mice, or it may reprogram these immune cells to respond to Alzheimer’s pathologies in ways that are less likely to damage nearby healthy brain cells, or it may do both,” Dr. Bukhbinder noted.
Alzheimer’s expert weighs in
Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said this study “suggests that flu vaccination may be valuable for maintaining cognition and memory as we age. This is even more relevant today in the COVID-19 environment.
“It is too early to tell if getting flu vaccine, on its own, can reduce risk of Alzheimer’s. More research is needed to understand the biological mechanisms behind the results in this study,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview.
“For example, it is possible that people who are getting vaccinated also take better care of their health in other ways, and these things add up to lower risk of Alzheimer’s and other dementias,” she noted.
“It is also possible that there are issues related to unequal access and/or vaccine hesitancy and how this may influence the study population and the research results,” Dr. Snyder said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Bukhbinder and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a large propensity-matched cohort of older adults, those who had received at least one influenza inoculation were 40% less likely than unvaccinated peers to develop AD over the course of 4 years.
“Influenza infection can cause serious health complications, particularly in adults 65 and older. Our study’s findings – that vaccination against the flu virus may also reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia for at least a few years – adds to the already compelling reasons get the flu vaccine annually,” Avram Bukhbinder, MD, of the University of Texas, Houston, said in an interview.
The new findings support earlier work by the same researchers that also suggested a protective effect of flu vaccination on dementia risk.
The latest study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
40% lower risk
Prior studies have found a lower risk of dementia of any etiology following influenza vaccination in selected populations, including veterans and patients with serious chronic health conditions.
However, the effect of influenza vaccination on AD risk in a general cohort of older U.S. adults has not been characterized.
Dr. Bukhbinder and colleagues used claims data to create a propensity-matched cohort of 935,887 influenza-vaccinated adults and a like number of unvaccinated adults aged 65 and older.
The median age of the persons in the matched sample was 73.7 years, and 57% were women. All were free of dementia during the 6-year look-back study period.
During median follow-up of 46 months, 47,889 (5.1%) flu-vaccinated adults and 79,630 (8.5%) unvaccinated adults developed AD.
The risk of AD was 40% lower in the vaccinated group (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.61). The absolute risk reduction was 0.034 (95% CI, 0.033-0.035), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 29.4.
Mechanism unclear
“Our study does not address the mechanism(s) underlying the apparent effect of influenza vaccination on Alzheimer’s risk, but we look forward to future research investigating this important question,” Dr. Bukhbinder said.
“One possible mechanism is that, by helping to prevent or mitigate infection with the flu virus and the systemic inflammation that follows such an infection, the flu vaccine helps to decrease the systemic inflammation that may have otherwise occurred,” he explained.
It’s also possible that influenza vaccination may trigger non–influenza-specific changes in the immune system that help to reduce the damage caused by AD pathology, including amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, he said.
“For example, the influenza vaccine may alter the brain’s immune cells such that they are better at clearing Alzheimer’s pathologies, an effect that has been seen in mice, or it may reprogram these immune cells to respond to Alzheimer’s pathologies in ways that are less likely to damage nearby healthy brain cells, or it may do both,” Dr. Bukhbinder noted.
Alzheimer’s expert weighs in
Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said this study “suggests that flu vaccination may be valuable for maintaining cognition and memory as we age. This is even more relevant today in the COVID-19 environment.
“It is too early to tell if getting flu vaccine, on its own, can reduce risk of Alzheimer’s. More research is needed to understand the biological mechanisms behind the results in this study,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview.
“For example, it is possible that people who are getting vaccinated also take better care of their health in other ways, and these things add up to lower risk of Alzheimer’s and other dementias,” she noted.
“It is also possible that there are issues related to unequal access and/or vaccine hesitancy and how this may influence the study population and the research results,” Dr. Snyder said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Bukhbinder and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE
Anorexia linked to notable shrinkage of key brain structures
, a new brain imaging study shows.
The reductions of cortical thickness, subcortical volumes, and cortical surface area were “very pronounced in acutely underweight anorexia,” Stefan Ehrlich, MD, PhD, head of the Eating Disorder Treatment and Research Center, Technical University, Dresden, Germany, told this news organization.
Yet even a “partial weight gain brings some normalization of these shrinkages. From this it can be deduced that a fast/early normalization of weight is also very important for brain health,” said Dr. Ehrlich.
The study was published online in Biological Psychiatry.
‘A wake-up call’
Researchers with the international ENIGMA Eating Disorders Working Group analyzed T1-weighted structural magnetic resonance imaging scans for nearly 2,000 people with AN (including those in recovery) and healthy controls across 22 sites worldwide.
In the AN sample, reductions in cortical thickness, subcortical volumes, and, to a lesser extent, cortical surface area, were “sizable (Cohen’s d up to 0.95), widespread, and co-localized with hub regions,” they report.
These reductions were two and four times larger than the abnormalities in brain size and shape seen in patients with other mental illnesses, the researchers note.
Noting the harmful impact of anorexia-related undernutrition on the brain, these deficits were associated with lower body mass index in the AN sample and were less severe in partially weight-restored patients – implying that, with appropriate early treatment and support, the brain might be able to repair itself, the investigators note.
“This really is a wake-up call, showing the need for early interventions for people with eating disorders,” Paul Thompson, PhD, author and lead scientist for the ENIGMA Consortium, said in a news release.
“The international scale of this work is extraordinary. Scientists from 22 centers worldwide pooled their brain scans to create the most detailed picture to date of how anorexia affects the brain,” Dr. Thompson added.
“The brain changes in anorexia were more severe than in other any psychiatric condition we have studied. Effects of treatments and interventions can now be evaluated, using these new brain maps as a reference,” he noted.
Immediate clinical implications
Reached for comment, Allison Eliscu, MD, chief of the division of adolescent medicine, department of pediatrics, at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, said the findings have immediate implications for clinical care.
“When we talk to our patients and the parents, a lot of them focus on things that they can see, such as the way they look. It adds a lot to the conversation to be able to say: You’re obviously not seeing these changes in the brain, but they’re happening and could be potentially long term if you don’t start weight restoring, or if you weight restore and then continue to drop again,” Dr. Eliscu said in an interview.
The findings, she said, really do highlight what anorexia can do to the brain.
“Adolescents need to know, anorexia can absolutely decrease the size of your brain in different areas; you’re not just losing weight in your belly and your thighs, you’re losing weight in the brain as well and that’s really concerning,” said Dr. Eliscu.
The study had no commercial funding. The authors and Dr. Eliscu report no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new brain imaging study shows.
The reductions of cortical thickness, subcortical volumes, and cortical surface area were “very pronounced in acutely underweight anorexia,” Stefan Ehrlich, MD, PhD, head of the Eating Disorder Treatment and Research Center, Technical University, Dresden, Germany, told this news organization.
Yet even a “partial weight gain brings some normalization of these shrinkages. From this it can be deduced that a fast/early normalization of weight is also very important for brain health,” said Dr. Ehrlich.
The study was published online in Biological Psychiatry.
‘A wake-up call’
Researchers with the international ENIGMA Eating Disorders Working Group analyzed T1-weighted structural magnetic resonance imaging scans for nearly 2,000 people with AN (including those in recovery) and healthy controls across 22 sites worldwide.
In the AN sample, reductions in cortical thickness, subcortical volumes, and, to a lesser extent, cortical surface area, were “sizable (Cohen’s d up to 0.95), widespread, and co-localized with hub regions,” they report.
These reductions were two and four times larger than the abnormalities in brain size and shape seen in patients with other mental illnesses, the researchers note.
Noting the harmful impact of anorexia-related undernutrition on the brain, these deficits were associated with lower body mass index in the AN sample and were less severe in partially weight-restored patients – implying that, with appropriate early treatment and support, the brain might be able to repair itself, the investigators note.
“This really is a wake-up call, showing the need for early interventions for people with eating disorders,” Paul Thompson, PhD, author and lead scientist for the ENIGMA Consortium, said in a news release.
“The international scale of this work is extraordinary. Scientists from 22 centers worldwide pooled their brain scans to create the most detailed picture to date of how anorexia affects the brain,” Dr. Thompson added.
“The brain changes in anorexia were more severe than in other any psychiatric condition we have studied. Effects of treatments and interventions can now be evaluated, using these new brain maps as a reference,” he noted.
Immediate clinical implications
Reached for comment, Allison Eliscu, MD, chief of the division of adolescent medicine, department of pediatrics, at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, said the findings have immediate implications for clinical care.
“When we talk to our patients and the parents, a lot of them focus on things that they can see, such as the way they look. It adds a lot to the conversation to be able to say: You’re obviously not seeing these changes in the brain, but they’re happening and could be potentially long term if you don’t start weight restoring, or if you weight restore and then continue to drop again,” Dr. Eliscu said in an interview.
The findings, she said, really do highlight what anorexia can do to the brain.
“Adolescents need to know, anorexia can absolutely decrease the size of your brain in different areas; you’re not just losing weight in your belly and your thighs, you’re losing weight in the brain as well and that’s really concerning,” said Dr. Eliscu.
The study had no commercial funding. The authors and Dr. Eliscu report no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new brain imaging study shows.
The reductions of cortical thickness, subcortical volumes, and cortical surface area were “very pronounced in acutely underweight anorexia,” Stefan Ehrlich, MD, PhD, head of the Eating Disorder Treatment and Research Center, Technical University, Dresden, Germany, told this news organization.
Yet even a “partial weight gain brings some normalization of these shrinkages. From this it can be deduced that a fast/early normalization of weight is also very important for brain health,” said Dr. Ehrlich.
The study was published online in Biological Psychiatry.
‘A wake-up call’
Researchers with the international ENIGMA Eating Disorders Working Group analyzed T1-weighted structural magnetic resonance imaging scans for nearly 2,000 people with AN (including those in recovery) and healthy controls across 22 sites worldwide.
In the AN sample, reductions in cortical thickness, subcortical volumes, and, to a lesser extent, cortical surface area, were “sizable (Cohen’s d up to 0.95), widespread, and co-localized with hub regions,” they report.
These reductions were two and four times larger than the abnormalities in brain size and shape seen in patients with other mental illnesses, the researchers note.
Noting the harmful impact of anorexia-related undernutrition on the brain, these deficits were associated with lower body mass index in the AN sample and were less severe in partially weight-restored patients – implying that, with appropriate early treatment and support, the brain might be able to repair itself, the investigators note.
“This really is a wake-up call, showing the need for early interventions for people with eating disorders,” Paul Thompson, PhD, author and lead scientist for the ENIGMA Consortium, said in a news release.
“The international scale of this work is extraordinary. Scientists from 22 centers worldwide pooled their brain scans to create the most detailed picture to date of how anorexia affects the brain,” Dr. Thompson added.
“The brain changes in anorexia were more severe than in other any psychiatric condition we have studied. Effects of treatments and interventions can now be evaluated, using these new brain maps as a reference,” he noted.
Immediate clinical implications
Reached for comment, Allison Eliscu, MD, chief of the division of adolescent medicine, department of pediatrics, at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, said the findings have immediate implications for clinical care.
“When we talk to our patients and the parents, a lot of them focus on things that they can see, such as the way they look. It adds a lot to the conversation to be able to say: You’re obviously not seeing these changes in the brain, but they’re happening and could be potentially long term if you don’t start weight restoring, or if you weight restore and then continue to drop again,” Dr. Eliscu said in an interview.
The findings, she said, really do highlight what anorexia can do to the brain.
“Adolescents need to know, anorexia can absolutely decrease the size of your brain in different areas; you’re not just losing weight in your belly and your thighs, you’re losing weight in the brain as well and that’s really concerning,” said Dr. Eliscu.
The study had no commercial funding. The authors and Dr. Eliscu report no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
FDA unveils 5-year plan for ALS and other neurodegenerative diseases
The agency’s Action Plan for Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases including Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) aims to advance the development of safe and effective medical products and facilitate patient access to novel treatments.
“The effects of rare neurodegenerative diseases are devastating, with very few effective therapeutic options available to patients. We recognize the urgent need for new treatments that can both improve and extend the lives of people diagnosed with these diseases,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a news release.
“To face that challenge and to accelerate drug development, we need innovative approaches to better understand these diseases while also building on current scientific and research capabilities,” Dr. Califf acknowledged.
“This action plan, especially including the use of public-private partnerships and direct involvement of patients, will ensure the FDA is working toward meeting the task set forth by Congress to enhance the quality of life for those suffering by facilitating access to new therapies,” Dr. Califf added.
Blueprint to ‘aggressively’ move forward
The action plan represents a “blueprint” for how the agency will “aggressively” move forward to address challenges in drug development for rare neurodegenerative diseases to improve patient health, the FDA said.
The plan was created in accordance with provisions in the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act (ACT for ALS) that President Biden signed into law in late 2021.
Targeted activities include establishing the FDA Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases Task Force and the public-private partnership for rare neurodegenerative diseases, developing disease-specific science strategies over the next 5 years, and leveraging ongoing FDA regulatory science efforts.
The ALS Science Strategy is part of the plan focused specifically on ALS. It provides a “forward-leaning” framework for FDA activities, which include efforts to improve characterization of disease pathogenesis and natural history, boost clinical trial infrastructure and agility to enable early selection of promising therapeutic candidates for further development, optimize clinical trial design, improve access to the trials, streamline clinical trial operations, and reduce the time and cost of drug development.
The FDA says patient engagement, public workshops, research projects, coordination across FDA centers and offices, and collaboration with the National Institutes of Health will be key to the success of implementation of the ALS Science Strategy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The agency’s Action Plan for Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases including Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) aims to advance the development of safe and effective medical products and facilitate patient access to novel treatments.
“The effects of rare neurodegenerative diseases are devastating, with very few effective therapeutic options available to patients. We recognize the urgent need for new treatments that can both improve and extend the lives of people diagnosed with these diseases,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a news release.
“To face that challenge and to accelerate drug development, we need innovative approaches to better understand these diseases while also building on current scientific and research capabilities,” Dr. Califf acknowledged.
“This action plan, especially including the use of public-private partnerships and direct involvement of patients, will ensure the FDA is working toward meeting the task set forth by Congress to enhance the quality of life for those suffering by facilitating access to new therapies,” Dr. Califf added.
Blueprint to ‘aggressively’ move forward
The action plan represents a “blueprint” for how the agency will “aggressively” move forward to address challenges in drug development for rare neurodegenerative diseases to improve patient health, the FDA said.
The plan was created in accordance with provisions in the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act (ACT for ALS) that President Biden signed into law in late 2021.
Targeted activities include establishing the FDA Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases Task Force and the public-private partnership for rare neurodegenerative diseases, developing disease-specific science strategies over the next 5 years, and leveraging ongoing FDA regulatory science efforts.
The ALS Science Strategy is part of the plan focused specifically on ALS. It provides a “forward-leaning” framework for FDA activities, which include efforts to improve characterization of disease pathogenesis and natural history, boost clinical trial infrastructure and agility to enable early selection of promising therapeutic candidates for further development, optimize clinical trial design, improve access to the trials, streamline clinical trial operations, and reduce the time and cost of drug development.
The FDA says patient engagement, public workshops, research projects, coordination across FDA centers and offices, and collaboration with the National Institutes of Health will be key to the success of implementation of the ALS Science Strategy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The agency’s Action Plan for Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases including Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) aims to advance the development of safe and effective medical products and facilitate patient access to novel treatments.
“The effects of rare neurodegenerative diseases are devastating, with very few effective therapeutic options available to patients. We recognize the urgent need for new treatments that can both improve and extend the lives of people diagnosed with these diseases,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a news release.
“To face that challenge and to accelerate drug development, we need innovative approaches to better understand these diseases while also building on current scientific and research capabilities,” Dr. Califf acknowledged.
“This action plan, especially including the use of public-private partnerships and direct involvement of patients, will ensure the FDA is working toward meeting the task set forth by Congress to enhance the quality of life for those suffering by facilitating access to new therapies,” Dr. Califf added.
Blueprint to ‘aggressively’ move forward
The action plan represents a “blueprint” for how the agency will “aggressively” move forward to address challenges in drug development for rare neurodegenerative diseases to improve patient health, the FDA said.
The plan was created in accordance with provisions in the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act (ACT for ALS) that President Biden signed into law in late 2021.
Targeted activities include establishing the FDA Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases Task Force and the public-private partnership for rare neurodegenerative diseases, developing disease-specific science strategies over the next 5 years, and leveraging ongoing FDA regulatory science efforts.
The ALS Science Strategy is part of the plan focused specifically on ALS. It provides a “forward-leaning” framework for FDA activities, which include efforts to improve characterization of disease pathogenesis and natural history, boost clinical trial infrastructure and agility to enable early selection of promising therapeutic candidates for further development, optimize clinical trial design, improve access to the trials, streamline clinical trial operations, and reduce the time and cost of drug development.
The FDA says patient engagement, public workshops, research projects, coordination across FDA centers and offices, and collaboration with the National Institutes of Health will be key to the success of implementation of the ALS Science Strategy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.