In combing the genome, scientists can use genetic clues to determine a person’s risk for psychiatric disease and even identify new drug targets. But the benefits of these discoveries will be limited to people of European descent.

Nearly 90% of participants in genome-wide association studies (GWASs), which search for gene variants linked to disease, are of European ancestry. This Eurocentric focus threatens to widen existing disparities in racial and ethnic mental health.

The significant downsides of genomics’ one-track mind

One obstacle hindering therapeutic advances in psychiatry is a shallow understanding of the mechanisms of disorders. “The biggest problem in terms of advancing research for mental health conditions is that we don’t understand the underlying biology,” says Laramie Duncan, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Genetics is one of the best ways to systematically look for new clues about the underlying biology.”

At the advent of genomic research, scientists thought it best to study DNA from people of a single ancestry from one continent. “Researchers for a long time held the idea that it was going to be too complicated to include multiple ancestries in the first rounds of genetic analyses,” says Dr. Duncan.

Studying DNA from someone with ancestors from multiple parts of the world wasn’t compatible with methods used in the early days of GWASs. “Individual parts of a person’s DNA can be linked back to one region of the world or another, and most of our methods essentially assume that all of a person’s DNA came from one region of the world,” says Dr. Duncan.

Because many genes are usually involved in psychiatric disorders, scientists need large numbers of participants to detect uncommon, influential variants. Early research was concentrated in North America and Europe so that scientists could readily collect samples from people of European ancestry.

“It then went out of hand because it became routine practice to use only this one group, essentially White, European ancestry people,” says Karoline Kuchenbaecker, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry at University College London.

Yet findings from one population won’t necessarily translate to others. “And that’s exactly what has been shown,” says Dr. Teferra. Polygenic risk scores developed for schizophrenia from European samples, for example, perform poorly among people of African ancestry, although among Europeans, they are strongly effective at differentiating European individuals with and those without schizophrenia. Moreover, drugs that target a gene identified from studies in European populations may be harmful to other groups.

Studies drawn from a diverse pool of participants would benefit a wider swath of humanity. They would also allow scientists to discover small areas of overlap in genomes of different populations, which would help them close in on the true biology of diseases and ensure that “we’re all benefiting from more diverse data in genetics and psychiatric genetics,” says Dr. Kuchenbaecker.
 

New efforts aim at filling the gaps

Genomic studies are featuring more people of non-European ancestry, but most of that improvement comes from populations of Asian ancestry, not African, Latin American, or Indigenous ancestry.

Efforts to increase representation of persons of African ancestry have largely focused on African Americans; fewer efforts have extended to the African continent, home to the most genetically diverse populations. Even fewer have focused on mental health. “The little that was being done was on a very small scale,” says Karestan Koenen, PhD, a professor at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

With this in mind, researchers from institutions in Kenya, Uganda, South Africa, and Ethiopia partnered with researchers at the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard to conduct the largest GWAS of psychiatric disorders in Africa. Dr. Koenen leads the project, Neuropsychiatric Genetics of African Populations–Psychosis (NeuroGAP-Psychosis), which will analyze DNA from over 35,000 people of African ancestry in each of these four countries. Investigators will compare the half of participants who have no history of psychosis with the half with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder in the hopes of identifying the genetic determinants of psychosis.

“Then any potential intervention or therapeutics that will be developed will also be useful for Africans,” says Dr. Teferra, a NeuroGAP principal investigator. Because of the tremendous degree of genetic diversity among people on the continent, however, findings still might not translate to all African populations.

But correcting equity problems in genomics isn’t as simple as recruiting people with non-European backgrounds, especially if those people are unfamiliar with research or have been subject to scientific exploitation. “Special care needs to be taken to, first of all, provide information that’s appropriate [to participants], but also motivate people to take part and then find ways to keep these communities involved and understand what they’re interested in,” says Dr. Kuchenbaecker, who is not involved with NeuroGAP.

For NeuroGAP, the team needed to work with ethical committees at all of the institutions involved, ensure research materials were appropriate for each community’s cultural context, and gain the trust of local communities.

“One of the biggest criticisms within the scientific world is that people from more endowed countries just fly in, bully everyone, collect the data, and leave, with no credit to the local scientists or communities,” says NeuroGAP principal investigator Lukoye Atwoli, MMed, PhD, professor of psychiatry and dean of the Medical College, East Africa, at the Aga Khan University, Nairobi, Kenya. “That is one of the biggest pitfalls we had to grapple with.”

To address that concern, NeuroGAP is training local researchers and is providing them with requested resources so they can carry out similar studies in the future. “We will be looking to address a real need in the academic community and in clinical service delivery,” says Dr. Atwoli.

Dr. Kuchenbaecker says that NeuroGAP demonstrates features necessary for projects seeking to improve equity in psychiatric genomics. “What they’re doing right is recruiting really large numbers, recruiting from different African countries, and involving African investigators,” she says.

In the Americas, Janitza Montalvo-Ortiz, PhD, assistant professor in the Division of Genetics, department of psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and her colleagues are expanding psychiatric genomics projects in Latin America. She co-founded the Latin American Genomics Consortium in 2019, a network of scientists supporting psychiatric genomic research in the region. The consortium also involves the Neuropsychiatric Genetics in Mexican Populations project, which is similar to NeuroGAP and is also led by Dr. Koenan.

The study of Latin American populations is complicated, because genes in these populations reflect Indigenous American, European, and African ancestries. Even when investigators sampled DNA from Latin American individuals, that data often went unused. “Now with new methods emerging to allow us to properly analyze admixed populations in GWAS studies, we’re making efforts to compile different datasets scattered across different large-scale cohorts,” says Dr. Montalvo-Ortiz. “Our ultimate goal is to conduct the first large-scale LatinX GWAS of psychiatry,” she says.

With these projects, researchers hope that new psychiatric research will produce clinical advances for people historically left on the sidelines of genomic studies. By involving their communities in genomic research, “whatever is going to be developed will also benefit our community,” says Dr. Teferra. “We will not be left out.”

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

In combing the genome, scientists can use genetic clues to determine a person’s risk for psychiatric disease and even identify new drug targets. But the benefits of these discoveries will be limited to people of European descent.

Nearly 90% of participants in genome-wide association studies (GWASs), which search for gene variants linked to disease, are of European ancestry. This Eurocentric focus threatens to widen existing disparities in racial and ethnic mental health.

The significant downsides of genomics’ one-track mind

One obstacle hindering therapeutic advances in psychiatry is a shallow understanding of the mechanisms of disorders. “The biggest problem in terms of advancing research for mental health conditions is that we don’t understand the underlying biology,” says Laramie Duncan, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Genetics is one of the best ways to systematically look for new clues about the underlying biology.”

At the advent of genomic research, scientists thought it best to study DNA from people of a single ancestry from one continent. “Researchers for a long time held the idea that it was going to be too complicated to include multiple ancestries in the first rounds of genetic analyses,” says Dr. Duncan.

Studying DNA from someone with ancestors from multiple parts of the world wasn’t compatible with methods used in the early days of GWASs. “Individual parts of a person’s DNA can be linked back to one region of the world or another, and most of our methods essentially assume that all of a person’s DNA came from one region of the world,” says Dr. Duncan.

Because many genes are usually involved in psychiatric disorders, scientists need large numbers of participants to detect uncommon, influential variants. Early research was concentrated in North America and Europe so that scientists could readily collect samples from people of European ancestry.

“It then went out of hand because it became routine practice to use only this one group, essentially White, European ancestry people,” says Karoline Kuchenbaecker, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry at University College London.

Yet findings from one population won’t necessarily translate to others. “And that’s exactly what has been shown,” says Dr. Teferra. Polygenic risk scores developed for schizophrenia from European samples, for example, perform poorly among people of African ancestry, although among Europeans, they are strongly effective at differentiating European individuals with and those without schizophrenia. Moreover, drugs that target a gene identified from studies in European populations may be harmful to other groups.

Studies drawn from a diverse pool of participants would benefit a wider swath of humanity. They would also allow scientists to discover small areas of overlap in genomes of different populations, which would help them close in on the true biology of diseases and ensure that “we’re all benefiting from more diverse data in genetics and psychiatric genetics,” says Dr. Kuchenbaecker.
 

New efforts aim at filling the gaps

Genomic studies are featuring more people of non-European ancestry, but most of that improvement comes from populations of Asian ancestry, not African, Latin American, or Indigenous ancestry.

Efforts to increase representation of persons of African ancestry have largely focused on African Americans; fewer efforts have extended to the African continent, home to the most genetically diverse populations. Even fewer have focused on mental health. “The little that was being done was on a very small scale,” says Karestan Koenen, PhD, a professor at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

With this in mind, researchers from institutions in Kenya, Uganda, South Africa, and Ethiopia partnered with researchers at the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard to conduct the largest GWAS of psychiatric disorders in Africa. Dr. Koenen leads the project, Neuropsychiatric Genetics of African Populations–Psychosis (NeuroGAP-Psychosis), which will analyze DNA from over 35,000 people of African ancestry in each of these four countries. Investigators will compare the half of participants who have no history of psychosis with the half with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder in the hopes of identifying the genetic determinants of psychosis.

“Then any potential intervention or therapeutics that will be developed will also be useful for Africans,” says Dr. Teferra, a NeuroGAP principal investigator. Because of the tremendous degree of genetic diversity among people on the continent, however, findings still might not translate to all African populations.

But correcting equity problems in genomics isn’t as simple as recruiting people with non-European backgrounds, especially if those people are unfamiliar with research or have been subject to scientific exploitation. “Special care needs to be taken to, first of all, provide information that’s appropriate [to participants], but also motivate people to take part and then find ways to keep these communities involved and understand what they’re interested in,” says Dr. Kuchenbaecker, who is not involved with NeuroGAP.

For NeuroGAP, the team needed to work with ethical committees at all of the institutions involved, ensure research materials were appropriate for each community’s cultural context, and gain the trust of local communities.

“One of the biggest criticisms within the scientific world is that people from more endowed countries just fly in, bully everyone, collect the data, and leave, with no credit to the local scientists or communities,” says NeuroGAP principal investigator Lukoye Atwoli, MMed, PhD, professor of psychiatry and dean of the Medical College, East Africa, at the Aga Khan University, Nairobi, Kenya. “That is one of the biggest pitfalls we had to grapple with.”

To address that concern, NeuroGAP is training local researchers and is providing them with requested resources so they can carry out similar studies in the future. “We will be looking to address a real need in the academic community and in clinical service delivery,” says Dr. Atwoli.

Dr. Kuchenbaecker says that NeuroGAP demonstrates features necessary for projects seeking to improve equity in psychiatric genomics. “What they’re doing right is recruiting really large numbers, recruiting from different African countries, and involving African investigators,” she says.

In the Americas, Janitza Montalvo-Ortiz, PhD, assistant professor in the Division of Genetics, department of psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and her colleagues are expanding psychiatric genomics projects in Latin America. She co-founded the Latin American Genomics Consortium in 2019, a network of scientists supporting psychiatric genomic research in the region. The consortium also involves the Neuropsychiatric Genetics in Mexican Populations project, which is similar to NeuroGAP and is also led by Dr. Koenan.

The study of Latin American populations is complicated, because genes in these populations reflect Indigenous American, European, and African ancestries. Even when investigators sampled DNA from Latin American individuals, that data often went unused. “Now with new methods emerging to allow us to properly analyze admixed populations in GWAS studies, we’re making efforts to compile different datasets scattered across different large-scale cohorts,” says Dr. Montalvo-Ortiz. “Our ultimate goal is to conduct the first large-scale LatinX GWAS of psychiatry,” she says.

With these projects, researchers hope that new psychiatric research will produce clinical advances for people historically left on the sidelines of genomic studies. By involving their communities in genomic research, “whatever is going to be developed will also benefit our community,” says Dr. Teferra. “We will not be left out.”

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

In combing the genome, scientists can use genetic clues to determine a person’s risk for psychiatric disease and even identify new drug targets. But the benefits of these discoveries will be limited to people of European descent.

Nearly 90% of participants in genome-wide association studies (GWASs), which search for gene variants linked to disease, are of European ancestry. This Eurocentric focus threatens to widen existing disparities in racial and ethnic mental health.

The significant downsides of genomics’ one-track mind

One obstacle hindering therapeutic advances in psychiatry is a shallow understanding of the mechanisms of disorders. “The biggest problem in terms of advancing research for mental health conditions is that we don’t understand the underlying biology,” says Laramie Duncan, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Genetics is one of the best ways to systematically look for new clues about the underlying biology.”

At the advent of genomic research, scientists thought it best to study DNA from people of a single ancestry from one continent. “Researchers for a long time held the idea that it was going to be too complicated to include multiple ancestries in the first rounds of genetic analyses,” says Dr. Duncan.

Studying DNA from someone with ancestors from multiple parts of the world wasn’t compatible with methods used in the early days of GWASs. “Individual parts of a person’s DNA can be linked back to one region of the world or another, and most of our methods essentially assume that all of a person’s DNA came from one region of the world,” says Dr. Duncan.

Because many genes are usually involved in psychiatric disorders, scientists need large numbers of participants to detect uncommon, influential variants. Early research was concentrated in North America and Europe so that scientists could readily collect samples from people of European ancestry.

“It then went out of hand because it became routine practice to use only this one group, essentially White, European ancestry people,” says Karoline Kuchenbaecker, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry at University College London.

Yet findings from one population won’t necessarily translate to others. “And that’s exactly what has been shown,” says Dr. Teferra. Polygenic risk scores developed for schizophrenia from European samples, for example, perform poorly among people of African ancestry, although among Europeans, they are strongly effective at differentiating European individuals with and those without schizophrenia. Moreover, drugs that target a gene identified from studies in European populations may be harmful to other groups.

Studies drawn from a diverse pool of participants would benefit a wider swath of humanity. They would also allow scientists to discover small areas of overlap in genomes of different populations, which would help them close in on the true biology of diseases and ensure that “we’re all benefiting from more diverse data in genetics and psychiatric genetics,” says Dr. Kuchenbaecker.
 

New efforts aim at filling the gaps

Genomic studies are featuring more people of non-European ancestry, but most of that improvement comes from populations of Asian ancestry, not African, Latin American, or Indigenous ancestry.

Efforts to increase representation of persons of African ancestry have largely focused on African Americans; fewer efforts have extended to the African continent, home to the most genetically diverse populations. Even fewer have focused on mental health. “The little that was being done was on a very small scale,” says Karestan Koenen, PhD, a professor at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

With this in mind, researchers from institutions in Kenya, Uganda, South Africa, and Ethiopia partnered with researchers at the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard to conduct the largest GWAS of psychiatric disorders in Africa. Dr. Koenen leads the project, Neuropsychiatric Genetics of African Populations–Psychosis (NeuroGAP-Psychosis), which will analyze DNA from over 35,000 people of African ancestry in each of these four countries. Investigators will compare the half of participants who have no history of psychosis with the half with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder in the hopes of identifying the genetic determinants of psychosis.

“Then any potential intervention or therapeutics that will be developed will also be useful for Africans,” says Dr. Teferra, a NeuroGAP principal investigator. Because of the tremendous degree of genetic diversity among people on the continent, however, findings still might not translate to all African populations.

But correcting equity problems in genomics isn’t as simple as recruiting people with non-European backgrounds, especially if those people are unfamiliar with research or have been subject to scientific exploitation. “Special care needs to be taken to, first of all, provide information that’s appropriate [to participants], but also motivate people to take part and then find ways to keep these communities involved and understand what they’re interested in,” says Dr. Kuchenbaecker, who is not involved with NeuroGAP.

For NeuroGAP, the team needed to work with ethical committees at all of the institutions involved, ensure research materials were appropriate for each community’s cultural context, and gain the trust of local communities.

“One of the biggest criticisms within the scientific world is that people from more endowed countries just fly in, bully everyone, collect the data, and leave, with no credit to the local scientists or communities,” says NeuroGAP principal investigator Lukoye Atwoli, MMed, PhD, professor of psychiatry and dean of the Medical College, East Africa, at the Aga Khan University, Nairobi, Kenya. “That is one of the biggest pitfalls we had to grapple with.”

To address that concern, NeuroGAP is training local researchers and is providing them with requested resources so they can carry out similar studies in the future. “We will be looking to address a real need in the academic community and in clinical service delivery,” says Dr. Atwoli.

Dr. Kuchenbaecker says that NeuroGAP demonstrates features necessary for projects seeking to improve equity in psychiatric genomics. “What they’re doing right is recruiting really large numbers, recruiting from different African countries, and involving African investigators,” she says.

In the Americas, Janitza Montalvo-Ortiz, PhD, assistant professor in the Division of Genetics, department of psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and her colleagues are expanding psychiatric genomics projects in Latin America. She co-founded the Latin American Genomics Consortium in 2019, a network of scientists supporting psychiatric genomic research in the region. The consortium also involves the Neuropsychiatric Genetics in Mexican Populations project, which is similar to NeuroGAP and is also led by Dr. Koenan.

The study of Latin American populations is complicated, because genes in these populations reflect Indigenous American, European, and African ancestries. Even when investigators sampled DNA from Latin American individuals, that data often went unused. “Now with new methods emerging to allow us to properly analyze admixed populations in GWAS studies, we’re making efforts to compile different datasets scattered across different large-scale cohorts,” says Dr. Montalvo-Ortiz. “Our ultimate goal is to conduct the first large-scale LatinX GWAS of psychiatry,” she says.

With these projects, researchers hope that new psychiatric research will produce clinical advances for people historically left on the sidelines of genomic studies. By involving their communities in genomic research, “whatever is going to be developed will also benefit our community,” says Dr. Teferra. “We will not be left out.”

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

Background: Empirical broad-spectrum antibiotics including anti-MRSA therapy are often selected because of concerns for resistant organisms. However, the outcomes of empirical anti-MRSA therapy among patients with pneumonia are unknown.

Dr. Li is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

Background: Empirical broad-spectrum antibiotics including anti-MRSA therapy are often selected because of concerns for resistant organisms. However, the outcomes of empirical anti-MRSA therapy among patients with pneumonia are unknown.

Dr. Li is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

Background: Empirical broad-spectrum antibiotics including anti-MRSA therapy are often selected because of concerns for resistant organisms. However, the outcomes of empirical anti-MRSA therapy among patients with pneumonia are unknown.

Dr. Li is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy for treating painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN).

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval is specific for the treatment of chronic pain associated with PDN using the Nevro’s Senza System with 10 kHz stimulation. It is intended for patients whose pain is refractory to, or who can’t tolerate, conventional medical treatment. According to the company, there are currently about 2.3 million individuals with refractory PDN in the United States.

The 10 kHz device, called HFX, involves minimally invasive epidural implantation of the stimulator device, which delivers mild electrical impulses to the nerves to interrupt pain signal to the brain. Such spinal cord stimulation “is a straightforward, well-established treatment for chronic pain that’s been used for over 30 years,” according to the company, although this is the first approval of the modality specifically for PDN.

Asked to comment, Rodica Pop-Busui MD, PhD, the Larry D. Soderquist Professor in Diabetes at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said that “the approval of the Nevro 10kHz high-frequency spinal cord stimulation to treat pain associated with diabetic neuropathy has the potential for benefit for many patients with diabetes and painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.”

She noted that, “although there are several other pharmacological agents that currently carry the FDA approval for PDN, this is a condition that is notoriously difficult to treat, particularly when taking into account the actual number needed to treat with a specific agent to achieve a clinically meaningful pain reduction, as well as the spectrum of side effects and drug-drug interactions in a patient population that require many other additional agents to manage diabetes and comorbidities on a daily basis. Thus, this new therapeutic approach besides effective pain reduction has the additional benefit of bypassing drug interactions.” Dr. Pop-Busui was the lead author on the American Diabetes Association’s 2017 position statement on diabetic neuropathy.

She also cautioned, on the other hand, that “it is not very clear yet how easy it will be for all eligible patients to have access to this technology, what will be the actual costs, the insurance coverage, or the acceptance by patients across various sociodemographic backgrounds from the at-large clinical care. However, given the challenges we encounter to treat diabetic neuropathy and particularly the pain associated with it, it is quite encouraging to see that the tools available to help our patients are now broader.”

Both 6-and 12-month results show benefit

The FDA approval was based on 6-month data from a prospective, multicenter, open-label randomized clinical trial published in JAMA Neurology.

Use of the 10-kHz SCS device was compared with conventional treatment alone in 216 patients with PDN refractory to gabapentinoids and at least one other analgesic class and lower limb pain intensity of 5 cm or more on a 10-cm visual analog scale.

The primary endpoint, percentage of participants reporting 50% pain relief or more without worsening of baseline neurologic deficits at 3 months, was met by 5 of 94 (5%) patients in the conventional group, compared with 75 of 95 (79%) with the 10-kHz SCS plus conventional treatment (P < .001).

Infections requiring device explant occurred in two patients in the 10-kHz SCS group (2%).

At 12 months, those in the original SCS group plus 86% of subjects given the option to cross over from the conventional treatment group showed “clear and sustained” benefits of the 10-kHz SCS with regard to lower-limb pain, pain interference with daily living, sleep quality, and activity, Erika Petersen, MD, director of the section of functional and restorative neurosurgery at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock , reported at the 2021 annual scientific sessions of the ADA.

Infection was the most common study-related adverse event, affecting 8 of 154 patients with the SCS implants (5.2%). Three resolved with conservative treatment and five (3.2%) required removal of the device.

The patients will be followed for a total of 24 months.

Commercial launch of HFX in the United States will begin immediately, the company said.

Dr. Pop-Busui has received consultant fees in the last 12 months from Averitas Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Nevro, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Petersen has financial relationships with Nevro, Medtronic, and several other neuromodulator makers.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy for treating painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN).

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval is specific for the treatment of chronic pain associated with PDN using the Nevro’s Senza System with 10 kHz stimulation. It is intended for patients whose pain is refractory to, or who can’t tolerate, conventional medical treatment. According to the company, there are currently about 2.3 million individuals with refractory PDN in the United States.

The 10 kHz device, called HFX, involves minimally invasive epidural implantation of the stimulator device, which delivers mild electrical impulses to the nerves to interrupt pain signal to the brain. Such spinal cord stimulation “is a straightforward, well-established treatment for chronic pain that’s been used for over 30 years,” according to the company, although this is the first approval of the modality specifically for PDN.

Asked to comment, Rodica Pop-Busui MD, PhD, the Larry D. Soderquist Professor in Diabetes at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said that “the approval of the Nevro 10kHz high-frequency spinal cord stimulation to treat pain associated with diabetic neuropathy has the potential for benefit for many patients with diabetes and painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.”

She noted that, “although there are several other pharmacological agents that currently carry the FDA approval for PDN, this is a condition that is notoriously difficult to treat, particularly when taking into account the actual number needed to treat with a specific agent to achieve a clinically meaningful pain reduction, as well as the spectrum of side effects and drug-drug interactions in a patient population that require many other additional agents to manage diabetes and comorbidities on a daily basis. Thus, this new therapeutic approach besides effective pain reduction has the additional benefit of bypassing drug interactions.” Dr. Pop-Busui was the lead author on the American Diabetes Association’s 2017 position statement on diabetic neuropathy.

She also cautioned, on the other hand, that “it is not very clear yet how easy it will be for all eligible patients to have access to this technology, what will be the actual costs, the insurance coverage, or the acceptance by patients across various sociodemographic backgrounds from the at-large clinical care. However, given the challenges we encounter to treat diabetic neuropathy and particularly the pain associated with it, it is quite encouraging to see that the tools available to help our patients are now broader.”

Both 6-and 12-month results show benefit

The FDA approval was based on 6-month data from a prospective, multicenter, open-label randomized clinical trial published in JAMA Neurology.

Use of the 10-kHz SCS device was compared with conventional treatment alone in 216 patients with PDN refractory to gabapentinoids and at least one other analgesic class and lower limb pain intensity of 5 cm or more on a 10-cm visual analog scale.

The primary endpoint, percentage of participants reporting 50% pain relief or more without worsening of baseline neurologic deficits at 3 months, was met by 5 of 94 (5%) patients in the conventional group, compared with 75 of 95 (79%) with the 10-kHz SCS plus conventional treatment (P < .001).

Infections requiring device explant occurred in two patients in the 10-kHz SCS group (2%).

At 12 months, those in the original SCS group plus 86% of subjects given the option to cross over from the conventional treatment group showed “clear and sustained” benefits of the 10-kHz SCS with regard to lower-limb pain, pain interference with daily living, sleep quality, and activity, Erika Petersen, MD, director of the section of functional and restorative neurosurgery at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock , reported at the 2021 annual scientific sessions of the ADA.

Infection was the most common study-related adverse event, affecting 8 of 154 patients with the SCS implants (5.2%). Three resolved with conservative treatment and five (3.2%) required removal of the device.

The patients will be followed for a total of 24 months.

Commercial launch of HFX in the United States will begin immediately, the company said.

Dr. Pop-Busui has received consultant fees in the last 12 months from Averitas Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Nevro, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Petersen has financial relationships with Nevro, Medtronic, and several other neuromodulator makers.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy for treating painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN).

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval is specific for the treatment of chronic pain associated with PDN using the Nevro’s Senza System with 10 kHz stimulation. It is intended for patients whose pain is refractory to, or who can’t tolerate, conventional medical treatment. According to the company, there are currently about 2.3 million individuals with refractory PDN in the United States.

The 10 kHz device, called HFX, involves minimally invasive epidural implantation of the stimulator device, which delivers mild electrical impulses to the nerves to interrupt pain signal to the brain. Such spinal cord stimulation “is a straightforward, well-established treatment for chronic pain that’s been used for over 30 years,” according to the company, although this is the first approval of the modality specifically for PDN.

Asked to comment, Rodica Pop-Busui MD, PhD, the Larry D. Soderquist Professor in Diabetes at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said that “the approval of the Nevro 10kHz high-frequency spinal cord stimulation to treat pain associated with diabetic neuropathy has the potential for benefit for many patients with diabetes and painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.”

She noted that, “although there are several other pharmacological agents that currently carry the FDA approval for PDN, this is a condition that is notoriously difficult to treat, particularly when taking into account the actual number needed to treat with a specific agent to achieve a clinically meaningful pain reduction, as well as the spectrum of side effects and drug-drug interactions in a patient population that require many other additional agents to manage diabetes and comorbidities on a daily basis. Thus, this new therapeutic approach besides effective pain reduction has the additional benefit of bypassing drug interactions.” Dr. Pop-Busui was the lead author on the American Diabetes Association’s 2017 position statement on diabetic neuropathy.

She also cautioned, on the other hand, that “it is not very clear yet how easy it will be for all eligible patients to have access to this technology, what will be the actual costs, the insurance coverage, or the acceptance by patients across various sociodemographic backgrounds from the at-large clinical care. However, given the challenges we encounter to treat diabetic neuropathy and particularly the pain associated with it, it is quite encouraging to see that the tools available to help our patients are now broader.”

Both 6-and 12-month results show benefit

The FDA approval was based on 6-month data from a prospective, multicenter, open-label randomized clinical trial published in JAMA Neurology.

Use of the 10-kHz SCS device was compared with conventional treatment alone in 216 patients with PDN refractory to gabapentinoids and at least one other analgesic class and lower limb pain intensity of 5 cm or more on a 10-cm visual analog scale.

The primary endpoint, percentage of participants reporting 50% pain relief or more without worsening of baseline neurologic deficits at 3 months, was met by 5 of 94 (5%) patients in the conventional group, compared with 75 of 95 (79%) with the 10-kHz SCS plus conventional treatment (P < .001).

Infections requiring device explant occurred in two patients in the 10-kHz SCS group (2%).

At 12 months, those in the original SCS group plus 86% of subjects given the option to cross over from the conventional treatment group showed “clear and sustained” benefits of the 10-kHz SCS with regard to lower-limb pain, pain interference with daily living, sleep quality, and activity, Erika Petersen, MD, director of the section of functional and restorative neurosurgery at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock , reported at the 2021 annual scientific sessions of the ADA.

Infection was the most common study-related adverse event, affecting 8 of 154 patients with the SCS implants (5.2%). Three resolved with conservative treatment and five (3.2%) required removal of the device.

The patients will be followed for a total of 24 months.

Commercial launch of HFX in the United States will begin immediately, the company said.

Dr. Pop-Busui has received consultant fees in the last 12 months from Averitas Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Nevro, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Petersen has financial relationships with Nevro, Medtronic, and several other neuromodulator makers.

The 4-year-old boy and his grandmother are out for stroll around the neighborhood, walking hand in hand.

“Let’s sit on the bench and talk,” the boy says.

“Okay,” says the grandmother and they climb up onto the high bench and look out across the quiet road to a small garden beyond.

“What would you like to talk about?” his grandmother asks.

“You first,” he says.

“Okay, let’s see ... the grandmother and the grandson are out for a walk and they see a bench to sit on. They climb up and look around. They see the daffodils and the white clouds in the blue sky. The breeze is blowing gently. It is a happy day. Your turn; what would you like to talk about?”

“Nanna and Papa.”

“Do you miss Papa?”

“Yes.”

“It has been a whole year since he died.”

“A long, long time.”

“He loved you very much.”

“Yes,” the boy replies.

“Nanna must miss him very much. She must be lonely without him.”

The boy nods.

They sit on for a while, watching the occasional car and the occasional bird pass by. The boy and the grandmother are quiet and contemplative.

“Okay, let’s go,” he says and jumps down, ready to continue their walk.
 

The Friendship Bench

It must have been such an experience that gave Dixon Chibanda, MD, MPH, PhD, a psychiatrist from Zimbabwe, his brilliant idea. He trained grandmothers in evidence-based talk therapy and sat them on a bench in the park with his patients.^1,2 He founded the Friendship Bench in 2006 in the Harare township of Mbare with 14 grandmothers. There are more than 300 grandmothers sitting on benches, listening, and providing cognitive-behavioral therapy–informed interventions because he could find no therapists in the community and he found that, with a little training, these grandmothers could provide effective culturally sensitive interventions.

Originally, the sessions were conducted in Shona, the predominant native language in Zimbabwe, but since 2017, the sessions are also in English. By 2017, the Friendship Bench had helped more than 30,000 people. The method has been empirically vetted and expanded to countries beyond, including the United States. Dr. Chibanda’s Friendship Bench serves as a blueprint for any community interested in bringing affordable, accessible, and highly effective mental health services to its residents. Dr. Chibanda said: “Imagine if we could create a global network of grandmothers in every major city in the world.”³The Friendship Bench is also used with other illnesses, such as HIV, to improve medication compliance.⁴ Participants in this study reported that the Friendship Bench had a critical role in helping them accept their HIV status, citing the grandmothers’ empathic attitude, their normalization of the reality of living with HIV, and their encouragement of young people to socialize with peers and be free of guilt. Many recipients also described enhanced health and well-being.
 

Why grandmothers?

Have you heard of the evolutionary importance of grandmothers? The grandmother hypothesis is an adaptationist explanation for the fact that the human female lifespan extends beyond the period of fertility. A third of the average human female life span is post menopause. Does such a long female postreproductive life span have a reason, inquired Mwenza Blell, PhD.⁵

Peter B. Medawar, PhD,6 and Kristen Hawkes, PhD,⁷ suggested that grandparents influence their own fitness by their actions toward their grandchildren. International fieldwork has revealed that the situation is less clear than their hypothesis. In industrialized countries, grandmaternal support is often financial or emotional. Two meta-analyses of largely the same group of studies investigating grandmother effects have come up with differing conclusions. Rebecca Sear, PhD, and Ruth Mace, PhD, conclude that grandmothers are “almost universally” beneficial, while acknowledging some variation in the effects of paternal grandmothers.⁸ Maternal grandparents appear to invest more in their grandchildren than paternal grandparents. Beverly I. Strassmann, PhD, and Wendy M. Garrard, PhD, concluded that, in patrilineal societies, survival of maternal grandparents is associated with survival of grandchildren and suggest this may represent covert matriliny.⁹

Examining specific time periods, maternal grandmothers may have greatest effect on survival of grandchildren at the time of weaning, a time when increased pathogenic exposure is a threat to survival. Paternal grandmothers may influence the survival of grandchildren during the early period of life (1-12 months) and to influence the condition of their daughters-in-law during pregnancy. The fact that grandmothers share one X chromosome with their sons’ daughters, none with their sons’ sons, and have a 50% chance of sharing an X chromosome with their daughters’ children is suggested to explain the patterns of survival observed in these studies than a simple maternal/paternal division.

In low- and middle-income countries, grandmothers and older women are seen as owners of traditional knowledge, and influence many decisions about childcare, help with domestic work, and emotional support and advice.¹⁰ Studies find a significant positive impact on breastfeeding when grandmothers of the infants had their own breastfeeding experience or were positively inclined toward breastfeeding, although one Chinese study found that highly educated grandmothers were associated with decreased exclusive breastfeeding.¹¹ Despite this, most health programs target individual new mothers, without an understanding of the family and who else influences decisions.

Grandchildren and grandparents benefit from intergenerational activities with improved health and well-being of both generations. When older adults are involved in raising children, there is a significant reduction in the incidence of behavioral problems in childhood and adolescence. Grandparents improve grandchild outcomes, when measured by coresidence, caregiving, financial, and other support. The grandchild outcomes include physical health, socioemotional well-being, and cognitive development.¹²

Are there ‘grandparent genes?’

Flavio Schwarz, PhD, and colleagues think that variants of APOE and CD33 protect against heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease, allowing older people to live longer with better functioning hearts and brains – thus enabling transfer of wisdom from older to younger generations.¹³ While this logic may be a bit of a stretch, it does lead to a more interesting question: What has wisdom got to do with it?

When I ask psychiatrists what they think about wisdom, they give a variety of answers. Dilip Jeste, MD, a geriatric psychiatrist who studies successful aging, helped develop a measurable vision of wisdom.¹⁴ Wisdom is defined as a “multidimensional human trait that includes good social decision-making and pragmatic knowledge of life, prosocial attitudes and behaviors such as empathy and compassion, emotional homeostasis with a tendency to favor positive emotions, reflection and self-understanding, acknowledgment of and coping effectively with uncertainty, and decisiveness.”¹⁵ Others suggest that they include spirituality, openness to new experience, and a sense of humor.¹⁶ A scale called the San Diego Wisdom scale (SD-WISE) was created, using 524 community-dwelling adults aged 25-104 years. These subjects comprised a high proportion of White adults and individuals with a higher education, thus lacking diversity. Lack of diversity perpetuates generalizations, and like all sociocultural constructs, truth is specific to the population studied. High scores on the SD-WISE are positively correlated with good mental health, self-ratings of successful aging, mastery, resilience, happiness, and satisfaction with life.

Which brings us back to the grandmothers on the bench: Can someone please give them the SD-WISE scale and confirm several hypotheses? I would like to know whether a pragmatic knowledge of life is a recognized grandmotherly quality, suitable for the bench.

Dr. Heru is professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (New York: Routledge, 2013). She has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Chibanda D. Bull World Health Organ. 2018 Jun 196(6):376-7.

2. Cavanaugh R. Lancet Psychiatry. 2017 Nov. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30420-0.

3. Nuwer R. “How a bench and a team of grandmothers can tackle depression.” BBC. 2020 May 27.

4. Ouansafi I et al. PLoS One. 2021 Apr 22;16(4):e0250074.

5. Blell M. “Grandmother hypothesis, grandmother effect, and residence patterns.” Int Encyclopedia Anthropol. John Wiley & Sons, 2018.

6. Medawar PB. An Unsolved Problem of Biology. Routledge, 1957.

7. Hawkes K et al. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 1998 Feb 395(3):1336-9.

8. Sear R and Mace R. Evol Hum Behav. 2008;29(1):1-18.

9. Strassmann B and Garrard WM. Hum Nat. 2011 Jul;22(1-2):201-22.

10. Aubel J. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(2). doi 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003808.

11. Negin J et al. BMJ Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016 Apr 7. doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-0880-5.

12. Sadruddin AFA. Soc Sci Med. 2019 Aug;239(4):112476.

13. Schwarz F et al. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2016 Jan 5;113(1):74-9.

14. Jeste DV et al. Psychol Inquiry. 2020 Jun 22;31(2):134-43.

15. Meeks TW and Jeste DV. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2009 Apr;66(4):355-65.

16. Bangen KJ et al. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2013 Dec;21(12):1254-66.

The 4-year-old boy and his grandmother are out for stroll around the neighborhood, walking hand in hand.

“Let’s sit on the bench and talk,” the boy says.

“Okay,” says the grandmother and they climb up onto the high bench and look out across the quiet road to a small garden beyond.

“What would you like to talk about?” his grandmother asks.

“You first,” he says.

“Okay, let’s see ... the grandmother and the grandson are out for a walk and they see a bench to sit on. They climb up and look around. They see the daffodils and the white clouds in the blue sky. The breeze is blowing gently. It is a happy day. Your turn; what would you like to talk about?”

“Nanna and Papa.”

“Do you miss Papa?”

“Yes.”

“It has been a whole year since he died.”

“A long, long time.”

“He loved you very much.”

“Yes,” the boy replies.

“Nanna must miss him very much. She must be lonely without him.”

The boy nods.

They sit on for a while, watching the occasional car and the occasional bird pass by. The boy and the grandmother are quiet and contemplative.

“Okay, let’s go,” he says and jumps down, ready to continue their walk.
 

The Friendship Bench

It must have been such an experience that gave Dixon Chibanda, MD, MPH, PhD, a psychiatrist from Zimbabwe, his brilliant idea. He trained grandmothers in evidence-based talk therapy and sat them on a bench in the park with his patients.^1,2 He founded the Friendship Bench in 2006 in the Harare township of Mbare with 14 grandmothers. There are more than 300 grandmothers sitting on benches, listening, and providing cognitive-behavioral therapy–informed interventions because he could find no therapists in the community and he found that, with a little training, these grandmothers could provide effective culturally sensitive interventions.

Originally, the sessions were conducted in Shona, the predominant native language in Zimbabwe, but since 2017, the sessions are also in English. By 2017, the Friendship Bench had helped more than 30,000 people. The method has been empirically vetted and expanded to countries beyond, including the United States. Dr. Chibanda’s Friendship Bench serves as a blueprint for any community interested in bringing affordable, accessible, and highly effective mental health services to its residents. Dr. Chibanda said: “Imagine if we could create a global network of grandmothers in every major city in the world.”³The Friendship Bench is also used with other illnesses, such as HIV, to improve medication compliance.⁴ Participants in this study reported that the Friendship Bench had a critical role in helping them accept their HIV status, citing the grandmothers’ empathic attitude, their normalization of the reality of living with HIV, and their encouragement of young people to socialize with peers and be free of guilt. Many recipients also described enhanced health and well-being.
 

Why grandmothers?

Have you heard of the evolutionary importance of grandmothers? The grandmother hypothesis is an adaptationist explanation for the fact that the human female lifespan extends beyond the period of fertility. A third of the average human female life span is post menopause. Does such a long female postreproductive life span have a reason, inquired Mwenza Blell, PhD.⁵

Peter B. Medawar, PhD,6 and Kristen Hawkes, PhD,⁷ suggested that grandparents influence their own fitness by their actions toward their grandchildren. International fieldwork has revealed that the situation is less clear than their hypothesis. In industrialized countries, grandmaternal support is often financial or emotional. Two meta-analyses of largely the same group of studies investigating grandmother effects have come up with differing conclusions. Rebecca Sear, PhD, and Ruth Mace, PhD, conclude that grandmothers are “almost universally” beneficial, while acknowledging some variation in the effects of paternal grandmothers.⁸ Maternal grandparents appear to invest more in their grandchildren than paternal grandparents. Beverly I. Strassmann, PhD, and Wendy M. Garrard, PhD, concluded that, in patrilineal societies, survival of maternal grandparents is associated with survival of grandchildren and suggest this may represent covert matriliny.⁹

Examining specific time periods, maternal grandmothers may have greatest effect on survival of grandchildren at the time of weaning, a time when increased pathogenic exposure is a threat to survival. Paternal grandmothers may influence the survival of grandchildren during the early period of life (1-12 months) and to influence the condition of their daughters-in-law during pregnancy. The fact that grandmothers share one X chromosome with their sons’ daughters, none with their sons’ sons, and have a 50% chance of sharing an X chromosome with their daughters’ children is suggested to explain the patterns of survival observed in these studies than a simple maternal/paternal division.

In low- and middle-income countries, grandmothers and older women are seen as owners of traditional knowledge, and influence many decisions about childcare, help with domestic work, and emotional support and advice.¹⁰ Studies find a significant positive impact on breastfeeding when grandmothers of the infants had their own breastfeeding experience or were positively inclined toward breastfeeding, although one Chinese study found that highly educated grandmothers were associated with decreased exclusive breastfeeding.¹¹ Despite this, most health programs target individual new mothers, without an understanding of the family and who else influences decisions.

Grandchildren and grandparents benefit from intergenerational activities with improved health and well-being of both generations. When older adults are involved in raising children, there is a significant reduction in the incidence of behavioral problems in childhood and adolescence. Grandparents improve grandchild outcomes, when measured by coresidence, caregiving, financial, and other support. The grandchild outcomes include physical health, socioemotional well-being, and cognitive development.¹²

Are there ‘grandparent genes?’

Flavio Schwarz, PhD, and colleagues think that variants of APOE and CD33 protect against heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease, allowing older people to live longer with better functioning hearts and brains – thus enabling transfer of wisdom from older to younger generations.¹³ While this logic may be a bit of a stretch, it does lead to a more interesting question: What has wisdom got to do with it?

When I ask psychiatrists what they think about wisdom, they give a variety of answers. Dilip Jeste, MD, a geriatric psychiatrist who studies successful aging, helped develop a measurable vision of wisdom.¹⁴ Wisdom is defined as a “multidimensional human trait that includes good social decision-making and pragmatic knowledge of life, prosocial attitudes and behaviors such as empathy and compassion, emotional homeostasis with a tendency to favor positive emotions, reflection and self-understanding, acknowledgment of and coping effectively with uncertainty, and decisiveness.”¹⁵ Others suggest that they include spirituality, openness to new experience, and a sense of humor.¹⁶ A scale called the San Diego Wisdom scale (SD-WISE) was created, using 524 community-dwelling adults aged 25-104 years. These subjects comprised a high proportion of White adults and individuals with a higher education, thus lacking diversity. Lack of diversity perpetuates generalizations, and like all sociocultural constructs, truth is specific to the population studied. High scores on the SD-WISE are positively correlated with good mental health, self-ratings of successful aging, mastery, resilience, happiness, and satisfaction with life.

Which brings us back to the grandmothers on the bench: Can someone please give them the SD-WISE scale and confirm several hypotheses? I would like to know whether a pragmatic knowledge of life is a recognized grandmotherly quality, suitable for the bench.

Dr. Heru is professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (New York: Routledge, 2013). She has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Chibanda D. Bull World Health Organ. 2018 Jun 196(6):376-7.

2. Cavanaugh R. Lancet Psychiatry. 2017 Nov. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30420-0.

3. Nuwer R. “How a bench and a team of grandmothers can tackle depression.” BBC. 2020 May 27.

4. Ouansafi I et al. PLoS One. 2021 Apr 22;16(4):e0250074.

5. Blell M. “Grandmother hypothesis, grandmother effect, and residence patterns.” Int Encyclopedia Anthropol. John Wiley & Sons, 2018.

6. Medawar PB. An Unsolved Problem of Biology. Routledge, 1957.

7. Hawkes K et al. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 1998 Feb 395(3):1336-9.

8. Sear R and Mace R. Evol Hum Behav. 2008;29(1):1-18.

9. Strassmann B and Garrard WM. Hum Nat. 2011 Jul;22(1-2):201-22.

10. Aubel J. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(2). doi 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003808.

11. Negin J et al. BMJ Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016 Apr 7. doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-0880-5.

12. Sadruddin AFA. Soc Sci Med. 2019 Aug;239(4):112476.

13. Schwarz F et al. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2016 Jan 5;113(1):74-9.

14. Jeste DV et al. Psychol Inquiry. 2020 Jun 22;31(2):134-43.

15. Meeks TW and Jeste DV. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2009 Apr;66(4):355-65.

16. Bangen KJ et al. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2013 Dec;21(12):1254-66.

The 4-year-old boy and his grandmother are out for stroll around the neighborhood, walking hand in hand.

“Let’s sit on the bench and talk,” the boy says.

“Okay,” says the grandmother and they climb up onto the high bench and look out across the quiet road to a small garden beyond.

“What would you like to talk about?” his grandmother asks.

“You first,” he says.

“Okay, let’s see ... the grandmother and the grandson are out for a walk and they see a bench to sit on. They climb up and look around. They see the daffodils and the white clouds in the blue sky. The breeze is blowing gently. It is a happy day. Your turn; what would you like to talk about?”

“Nanna and Papa.”

“Do you miss Papa?”

“Yes.”

“It has been a whole year since he died.”

“A long, long time.”

“He loved you very much.”

“Yes,” the boy replies.

“Nanna must miss him very much. She must be lonely without him.”

The boy nods.

They sit on for a while, watching the occasional car and the occasional bird pass by. The boy and the grandmother are quiet and contemplative.

“Okay, let’s go,” he says and jumps down, ready to continue their walk.
 

The Friendship Bench

It must have been such an experience that gave Dixon Chibanda, MD, MPH, PhD, a psychiatrist from Zimbabwe, his brilliant idea. He trained grandmothers in evidence-based talk therapy and sat them on a bench in the park with his patients.^1,2 He founded the Friendship Bench in 2006 in the Harare township of Mbare with 14 grandmothers. There are more than 300 grandmothers sitting on benches, listening, and providing cognitive-behavioral therapy–informed interventions because he could find no therapists in the community and he found that, with a little training, these grandmothers could provide effective culturally sensitive interventions.

Originally, the sessions were conducted in Shona, the predominant native language in Zimbabwe, but since 2017, the sessions are also in English. By 2017, the Friendship Bench had helped more than 30,000 people. The method has been empirically vetted and expanded to countries beyond, including the United States. Dr. Chibanda’s Friendship Bench serves as a blueprint for any community interested in bringing affordable, accessible, and highly effective mental health services to its residents. Dr. Chibanda said: “Imagine if we could create a global network of grandmothers in every major city in the world.”³The Friendship Bench is also used with other illnesses, such as HIV, to improve medication compliance.⁴ Participants in this study reported that the Friendship Bench had a critical role in helping them accept their HIV status, citing the grandmothers’ empathic attitude, their normalization of the reality of living with HIV, and their encouragement of young people to socialize with peers and be free of guilt. Many recipients also described enhanced health and well-being.
 

Why grandmothers?

Have you heard of the evolutionary importance of grandmothers? The grandmother hypothesis is an adaptationist explanation for the fact that the human female lifespan extends beyond the period of fertility. A third of the average human female life span is post menopause. Does such a long female postreproductive life span have a reason, inquired Mwenza Blell, PhD.⁵

Peter B. Medawar, PhD,6 and Kristen Hawkes, PhD,⁷ suggested that grandparents influence their own fitness by their actions toward their grandchildren. International fieldwork has revealed that the situation is less clear than their hypothesis. In industrialized countries, grandmaternal support is often financial or emotional. Two meta-analyses of largely the same group of studies investigating grandmother effects have come up with differing conclusions. Rebecca Sear, PhD, and Ruth Mace, PhD, conclude that grandmothers are “almost universally” beneficial, while acknowledging some variation in the effects of paternal grandmothers.⁸ Maternal grandparents appear to invest more in their grandchildren than paternal grandparents. Beverly I. Strassmann, PhD, and Wendy M. Garrard, PhD, concluded that, in patrilineal societies, survival of maternal grandparents is associated with survival of grandchildren and suggest this may represent covert matriliny.⁹

Examining specific time periods, maternal grandmothers may have greatest effect on survival of grandchildren at the time of weaning, a time when increased pathogenic exposure is a threat to survival. Paternal grandmothers may influence the survival of grandchildren during the early period of life (1-12 months) and to influence the condition of their daughters-in-law during pregnancy. The fact that grandmothers share one X chromosome with their sons’ daughters, none with their sons’ sons, and have a 50% chance of sharing an X chromosome with their daughters’ children is suggested to explain the patterns of survival observed in these studies than a simple maternal/paternal division.

In low- and middle-income countries, grandmothers and older women are seen as owners of traditional knowledge, and influence many decisions about childcare, help with domestic work, and emotional support and advice.¹⁰ Studies find a significant positive impact on breastfeeding when grandmothers of the infants had their own breastfeeding experience or were positively inclined toward breastfeeding, although one Chinese study found that highly educated grandmothers were associated with decreased exclusive breastfeeding.¹¹ Despite this, most health programs target individual new mothers, without an understanding of the family and who else influences decisions.

Grandchildren and grandparents benefit from intergenerational activities with improved health and well-being of both generations. When older adults are involved in raising children, there is a significant reduction in the incidence of behavioral problems in childhood and adolescence. Grandparents improve grandchild outcomes, when measured by coresidence, caregiving, financial, and other support. The grandchild outcomes include physical health, socioemotional well-being, and cognitive development.¹²

Are there ‘grandparent genes?’

Flavio Schwarz, PhD, and colleagues think that variants of APOE and CD33 protect against heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease, allowing older people to live longer with better functioning hearts and brains – thus enabling transfer of wisdom from older to younger generations.¹³ While this logic may be a bit of a stretch, it does lead to a more interesting question: What has wisdom got to do with it?

When I ask psychiatrists what they think about wisdom, they give a variety of answers. Dilip Jeste, MD, a geriatric psychiatrist who studies successful aging, helped develop a measurable vision of wisdom.¹⁴ Wisdom is defined as a “multidimensional human trait that includes good social decision-making and pragmatic knowledge of life, prosocial attitudes and behaviors such as empathy and compassion, emotional homeostasis with a tendency to favor positive emotions, reflection and self-understanding, acknowledgment of and coping effectively with uncertainty, and decisiveness.”¹⁵ Others suggest that they include spirituality, openness to new experience, and a sense of humor.¹⁶ A scale called the San Diego Wisdom scale (SD-WISE) was created, using 524 community-dwelling adults aged 25-104 years. These subjects comprised a high proportion of White adults and individuals with a higher education, thus lacking diversity. Lack of diversity perpetuates generalizations, and like all sociocultural constructs, truth is specific to the population studied. High scores on the SD-WISE are positively correlated with good mental health, self-ratings of successful aging, mastery, resilience, happiness, and satisfaction with life.

Which brings us back to the grandmothers on the bench: Can someone please give them the SD-WISE scale and confirm several hypotheses? I would like to know whether a pragmatic knowledge of life is a recognized grandmotherly quality, suitable for the bench.

Dr. Heru is professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (New York: Routledge, 2013). She has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Chibanda D. Bull World Health Organ. 2018 Jun 196(6):376-7.

2. Cavanaugh R. Lancet Psychiatry. 2017 Nov. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30420-0.

3. Nuwer R. “How a bench and a team of grandmothers can tackle depression.” BBC. 2020 May 27.

4. Ouansafi I et al. PLoS One. 2021 Apr 22;16(4):e0250074.

5. Blell M. “Grandmother hypothesis, grandmother effect, and residence patterns.” Int Encyclopedia Anthropol. John Wiley & Sons, 2018.

6. Medawar PB. An Unsolved Problem of Biology. Routledge, 1957.

7. Hawkes K et al. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 1998 Feb 395(3):1336-9.

8. Sear R and Mace R. Evol Hum Behav. 2008;29(1):1-18.

9. Strassmann B and Garrard WM. Hum Nat. 2011 Jul;22(1-2):201-22.

10. Aubel J. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(2). doi 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003808.

11. Negin J et al. BMJ Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016 Apr 7. doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-0880-5.

12. Sadruddin AFA. Soc Sci Med. 2019 Aug;239(4):112476.

13. Schwarz F et al. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2016 Jan 5;113(1):74-9.

14. Jeste DV et al. Psychol Inquiry. 2020 Jun 22;31(2):134-43.

15. Meeks TW and Jeste DV. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2009 Apr;66(4):355-65.

16. Bangen KJ et al. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2013 Dec;21(12):1254-66.

With 49% of the U.S. population fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, a new study highlights the degree of vaccine hesitancy among patients with rheumatic disease to get the vaccine.

Halfpoint Images/Moment/Getty Images

The international study, published in May 2021 in Rheumatology, suggests that, of 1,258 patients surveyed worldwide, approximately 40% of patients said they would decline the vaccine.

“Sometimes it’s helpful to talk through their concerns,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, a University of Alabama at Birmingham rheumatologist who leads the American College of Rheumatology COVID-19 vaccine task force. Dr. Curtis recently reviewed the current literature on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

COVID-19 vaccinations for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic disease (AIIRD) is not straightforward. The immune response can be blunted by existing treatments and disease flares can occur.

Courtesy UAB Photo

The latest version of COVID-19 vaccination guidance for patients with RMDs from the ACR addresses vaccine use and implementation strategies. The guidance was issued as conditional or provisional because of the lack of evidence. Its principals are largely based on accepted practice for other vaccines. The guidance is routinely updated as new evidence becomes available. In his presentation at GRAPPA, Dr. Curtis reviewed the latest version of the guidance, which he emphasized is a guidance only and not meant to replace clinical judgment or shared decision-making with patients.

“This is a platform for you to start from as you are thinking about and discussing with your patient what might be best for him or her,” he said.
 

Concerns about impact of disease activity, treatments on effectiveness

Dr. Curtis highlighted some controversial aspects of COVID-19 vaccines, including heterogeneity of rheumatic diseases and treatment. Patients with AIIRD, including psoriatic arthritis, spondyloarthritis, RA, and lupus, are at higher risk for hospitalized COVID-19 and worse outcomes, and as such, they are prioritized for vaccination by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, for AIIRD patients, the immune response to COVID-19 vaccination can be “blunted,” according to one study. This may be because of glucocorticoid use or high disease activity. Immunomodulatory therapies, such as methotrexate, rituximab, and abatacept, are known to diminish vaccine response in general. The evidence is less clear for tumor necrosis factor and Janus kinase inhibitors, but they are thought to have the same impact on vaccine effectiveness, Dr. Curtis said. But in these cases, if the effect of a COVID-19 vaccine drops from 90% to 70%, the benefits of vaccination still far outweighs the risk of contracting COVID-19.

“Although we don’t have strong data with clinical outcomes for autoimmune disease or inflammatory disease patients, I’ll run a hypothetical and say: ‘Look, if this vaccine starts 90%-95% effective, even if it’s only 70% effective in somebody with lupus or vasculitis or someone who is taking a higher dose of steroids, I’ll take 70% over nothing if you chose to be vaccinated,’ ” he said.

The benefit of vaccination also outweighs the potential risk of disease flare, he said. The risk is real, but to date, no studies have pointed to a significant risk of disease flare or worsening. However, there have been reported cases of myocardial infarction.

Autoimmune manifestations after vaccination vs. after infection

Researchers writing in the June 29, 2021, issue of JAMA Cardiology described case reports of acute myocarditis in 23 people who received the BNT162b2-mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines. Plus, there been subsequent reports of myocarditis in other patients, wrote David K. Shay, MD, MPH, in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Shay is a member of the CDC COVID-19 Response Team.

“What do we know about this possible association between myocarditis and immunization with mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, and what remains unclear? Acute onset of chest pain 3-5 days after vaccine administration, usually after a second dose, is a typical feature of reported cases and suggests an immune-mediated mechanism,” he said.

The cases of myocarditis are concerning, Dr. Curtis said, but the risk is very low with relatively few cases reported among 161 million fully vaccinated people in the United States.

“Certainly, we’re not seeking to minimize that, but the risk of getting COVID and some of the downstream sequelae (autoimmune manifestations) almost certainly outweigh the risks for some of the autoimmune manifestations or worsening [condition],” he said.

A nationwide cohort study from Denmark of 58,052 patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease published in December 2020 in Rheumatology, found that patients with COVID-19 who had an inflammatory rheumatic disease were more likely to be admitted to the hospital, compared with COVID-19 patients without rheumatic disease. Patients with rheumatic disease had a higher risk of a severe COVID-19 outcome, but it was not a statistically significant difference, said Dr. Curtis, adding that the individual factors such as age and treatment currently received largely determines the risk. The strongest associations between hospitalization for COVID-19 and rheumatic disease were found among patients with RA, vasculitis, and connective tissue disease. Dr. Curtis noted that his own new study results show that risk of death from a COVID-19 infection is higher for patients who have RA or psoriatic arthritis.

There have been published case reports of patients who have developed new-onset lupus, vasculitis, Kawasaki disease, multiple sclerosis, autoimmune cytopenias, and other manifestations after a COVID-19 infection. “These authors suggest that perhaps there is a transient influence on the immune system that leads to a loss of self-tolerance to antigens,” Dr. Curtis said. “Some patients may have an underlying predisposition to autoimmunity in which infections just unmask as we sometimes see with other infections – chronic hepatitis for example.”
 

Antibody tests not recommended

In its COVID-19 guidance, the ACR, like the Food and Drug Administration, recommends health care providers not to routinely order antibody tests for IgM or IgG to assess immunity after a person has been vaccinated or to assess the need for vaccination in an unvaccinated person. More research is needed to determine if antibodies provide protection, and if so, for how long and how much. Plus, the antibody testing process is not clear cut, so ordering the wrong test is possible, Dr. Curtis said. The tests should clearly differentiate between spike proteins or nucleocapsid proteins.

“The bottom line is that you might be ordering the wrong lab test. Even if you’re ordering the right lab test, I would assert that you probably don’t know what to do with the result. I would then ask you, ‘Does it mean they are protected? Does it mean they are not protected? What are you going to do with the results?’ ” he asked.

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, a specialist in infectious diseases at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said that, at this point, it’s too early to know what antibody tests mean. “I think it is tempting to test some people, especially patients on B-cell depletion therapy and those on mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). Outside of those two types of [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] users, I wouldn’t be tempted to test. We don’t know how well protected they are, but we assume they are protected to some extent,” he said. “They’re probably partially protected and as such, they should take the same precautions they were taking a year ago: masking and avoidance. I think that’s just how it’s going to be for those folks for another year until we get this thing sorted out.”
 

Modifications to existing rheumatic disease therapies

In its COVID-19 vaccine guidance, the ACR issued recommendations for some common rheumatic disease therapeutics before and/or after the COVID-19 vaccine is administered. The modifications are limited to MMF, methotrexate, JAK inhibitors, subcutaneous abatacept, acetaminophen, and NSAIDs. The recommendations include: hold mycophenolate for 1 week after vaccination if disease is stable; for patients with well-controlled disease, hold methotrexate for 1 week after each of the two mRNA vaccine doses; for patients with well-controlled disease receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, hold methotrexate for 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine; hold JAK inhibitors for 1 week after each dose; for abatacept subcutaneous, hold treatment for 1 week before and after the first dose; and in patients with stable disease, hold acetaminophen and NSAIDs for 24 hours before vaccination, because taking either before vaccination could blunt the vaccine response, Dr. Curtis said.

Holding medication, such as methotrexate, could risk having a flare-up of disease. One study showed the rate of disease flare-up because of withholding standard treatment may be up to 11%, compared with 5.1% in patients who did not hold treatment, he said.

“The point is, if you hold some of these therapies, whether methotrexate or tofacitinib, arthritis will get a little bit worse,” Dr. Curtis said.

A study published on the preprint server medRxiv found that immunosuppressive therapies blunted the response of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases, most significantly with glucocorticoids and B-cell therapies.

“That’s what’s led to a lot of the guidance statements about holding treatments for a week or 2 for rituximab. If you’re giving it at 6-month intervals, you want to schedule the vaccine dose or series at about month 5, or a month before the next cycle,” he said.

Talking with patients about COVID-19 vaccination

In talking with patients about vaccine safety, Dr. Curtis recommends addressing a few common misperceptions. First, COVID-19 viruses were not created with a live-attenuated virus (which would be contraindicated for immunosuppressed patients). “You can put patients’ mind at ease that none of the vaccine candidates or platforms – even those that say viral vector – put patients at risk for contracting the infection. These are nonreplicating. So, it’s like you extracted the engine that would allow this virus to replicate,” he said.

Of three COVID-19 vaccinations available in the United States, is one better than the other? The ACR COVID-19 vaccine task force did not reach a consensus on safety profiles of the vaccines because, without head-to-head comparisons, it’s impossible to know, he said.

In talking with patients, review the protocol for continuing with prescribed treatment modalities before the patient receives a COVID-19 vaccine. Safety concerns and concerns about the possibility of having a disease flare-up should be addressed, he said.

With 49% of the U.S. population fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, a new study highlights the degree of vaccine hesitancy among patients with rheumatic disease to get the vaccine.

Halfpoint Images/Moment/Getty Images

The international study, published in May 2021 in Rheumatology, suggests that, of 1,258 patients surveyed worldwide, approximately 40% of patients said they would decline the vaccine.

“Sometimes it’s helpful to talk through their concerns,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, a University of Alabama at Birmingham rheumatologist who leads the American College of Rheumatology COVID-19 vaccine task force. Dr. Curtis recently reviewed the current literature on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

COVID-19 vaccinations for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic disease (AIIRD) is not straightforward. The immune response can be blunted by existing treatments and disease flares can occur.

Courtesy UAB Photo

The latest version of COVID-19 vaccination guidance for patients with RMDs from the ACR addresses vaccine use and implementation strategies. The guidance was issued as conditional or provisional because of the lack of evidence. Its principals are largely based on accepted practice for other vaccines. The guidance is routinely updated as new evidence becomes available. In his presentation at GRAPPA, Dr. Curtis reviewed the latest version of the guidance, which he emphasized is a guidance only and not meant to replace clinical judgment or shared decision-making with patients.

“This is a platform for you to start from as you are thinking about and discussing with your patient what might be best for him or her,” he said.
 

Concerns about impact of disease activity, treatments on effectiveness

Dr. Curtis highlighted some controversial aspects of COVID-19 vaccines, including heterogeneity of rheumatic diseases and treatment. Patients with AIIRD, including psoriatic arthritis, spondyloarthritis, RA, and lupus, are at higher risk for hospitalized COVID-19 and worse outcomes, and as such, they are prioritized for vaccination by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, for AIIRD patients, the immune response to COVID-19 vaccination can be “blunted,” according to one study. This may be because of glucocorticoid use or high disease activity. Immunomodulatory therapies, such as methotrexate, rituximab, and abatacept, are known to diminish vaccine response in general. The evidence is less clear for tumor necrosis factor and Janus kinase inhibitors, but they are thought to have the same impact on vaccine effectiveness, Dr. Curtis said. But in these cases, if the effect of a COVID-19 vaccine drops from 90% to 70%, the benefits of vaccination still far outweighs the risk of contracting COVID-19.

“Although we don’t have strong data with clinical outcomes for autoimmune disease or inflammatory disease patients, I’ll run a hypothetical and say: ‘Look, if this vaccine starts 90%-95% effective, even if it’s only 70% effective in somebody with lupus or vasculitis or someone who is taking a higher dose of steroids, I’ll take 70% over nothing if you chose to be vaccinated,’ ” he said.

The benefit of vaccination also outweighs the potential risk of disease flare, he said. The risk is real, but to date, no studies have pointed to a significant risk of disease flare or worsening. However, there have been reported cases of myocardial infarction.

Autoimmune manifestations after vaccination vs. after infection

Researchers writing in the June 29, 2021, issue of JAMA Cardiology described case reports of acute myocarditis in 23 people who received the BNT162b2-mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines. Plus, there been subsequent reports of myocarditis in other patients, wrote David K. Shay, MD, MPH, in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Shay is a member of the CDC COVID-19 Response Team.

“What do we know about this possible association between myocarditis and immunization with mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, and what remains unclear? Acute onset of chest pain 3-5 days after vaccine administration, usually after a second dose, is a typical feature of reported cases and suggests an immune-mediated mechanism,” he said.

The cases of myocarditis are concerning, Dr. Curtis said, but the risk is very low with relatively few cases reported among 161 million fully vaccinated people in the United States.

“Certainly, we’re not seeking to minimize that, but the risk of getting COVID and some of the downstream sequelae (autoimmune manifestations) almost certainly outweigh the risks for some of the autoimmune manifestations or worsening [condition],” he said.

A nationwide cohort study from Denmark of 58,052 patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease published in December 2020 in Rheumatology, found that patients with COVID-19 who had an inflammatory rheumatic disease were more likely to be admitted to the hospital, compared with COVID-19 patients without rheumatic disease. Patients with rheumatic disease had a higher risk of a severe COVID-19 outcome, but it was not a statistically significant difference, said Dr. Curtis, adding that the individual factors such as age and treatment currently received largely determines the risk. The strongest associations between hospitalization for COVID-19 and rheumatic disease were found among patients with RA, vasculitis, and connective tissue disease. Dr. Curtis noted that his own new study results show that risk of death from a COVID-19 infection is higher for patients who have RA or psoriatic arthritis.

There have been published case reports of patients who have developed new-onset lupus, vasculitis, Kawasaki disease, multiple sclerosis, autoimmune cytopenias, and other manifestations after a COVID-19 infection. “These authors suggest that perhaps there is a transient influence on the immune system that leads to a loss of self-tolerance to antigens,” Dr. Curtis said. “Some patients may have an underlying predisposition to autoimmunity in which infections just unmask as we sometimes see with other infections – chronic hepatitis for example.”
 

Antibody tests not recommended

In its COVID-19 guidance, the ACR, like the Food and Drug Administration, recommends health care providers not to routinely order antibody tests for IgM or IgG to assess immunity after a person has been vaccinated or to assess the need for vaccination in an unvaccinated person. More research is needed to determine if antibodies provide protection, and if so, for how long and how much. Plus, the antibody testing process is not clear cut, so ordering the wrong test is possible, Dr. Curtis said. The tests should clearly differentiate between spike proteins or nucleocapsid proteins.

“The bottom line is that you might be ordering the wrong lab test. Even if you’re ordering the right lab test, I would assert that you probably don’t know what to do with the result. I would then ask you, ‘Does it mean they are protected? Does it mean they are not protected? What are you going to do with the results?’ ” he asked.

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, a specialist in infectious diseases at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said that, at this point, it’s too early to know what antibody tests mean. “I think it is tempting to test some people, especially patients on B-cell depletion therapy and those on mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). Outside of those two types of [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] users, I wouldn’t be tempted to test. We don’t know how well protected they are, but we assume they are protected to some extent,” he said. “They’re probably partially protected and as such, they should take the same precautions they were taking a year ago: masking and avoidance. I think that’s just how it’s going to be for those folks for another year until we get this thing sorted out.”
 

Modifications to existing rheumatic disease therapies

In its COVID-19 vaccine guidance, the ACR issued recommendations for some common rheumatic disease therapeutics before and/or after the COVID-19 vaccine is administered. The modifications are limited to MMF, methotrexate, JAK inhibitors, subcutaneous abatacept, acetaminophen, and NSAIDs. The recommendations include: hold mycophenolate for 1 week after vaccination if disease is stable; for patients with well-controlled disease, hold methotrexate for 1 week after each of the two mRNA vaccine doses; for patients with well-controlled disease receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, hold methotrexate for 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine; hold JAK inhibitors for 1 week after each dose; for abatacept subcutaneous, hold treatment for 1 week before and after the first dose; and in patients with stable disease, hold acetaminophen and NSAIDs for 24 hours before vaccination, because taking either before vaccination could blunt the vaccine response, Dr. Curtis said.

Holding medication, such as methotrexate, could risk having a flare-up of disease. One study showed the rate of disease flare-up because of withholding standard treatment may be up to 11%, compared with 5.1% in patients who did not hold treatment, he said.

“The point is, if you hold some of these therapies, whether methotrexate or tofacitinib, arthritis will get a little bit worse,” Dr. Curtis said.

A study published on the preprint server medRxiv found that immunosuppressive therapies blunted the response of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases, most significantly with glucocorticoids and B-cell therapies.

“That’s what’s led to a lot of the guidance statements about holding treatments for a week or 2 for rituximab. If you’re giving it at 6-month intervals, you want to schedule the vaccine dose or series at about month 5, or a month before the next cycle,” he said.

Talking with patients about COVID-19 vaccination

In talking with patients about vaccine safety, Dr. Curtis recommends addressing a few common misperceptions. First, COVID-19 viruses were not created with a live-attenuated virus (which would be contraindicated for immunosuppressed patients). “You can put patients’ mind at ease that none of the vaccine candidates or platforms – even those that say viral vector – put patients at risk for contracting the infection. These are nonreplicating. So, it’s like you extracted the engine that would allow this virus to replicate,” he said.

Of three COVID-19 vaccinations available in the United States, is one better than the other? The ACR COVID-19 vaccine task force did not reach a consensus on safety profiles of the vaccines because, without head-to-head comparisons, it’s impossible to know, he said.

In talking with patients, review the protocol for continuing with prescribed treatment modalities before the patient receives a COVID-19 vaccine. Safety concerns and concerns about the possibility of having a disease flare-up should be addressed, he said.

With 49% of the U.S. population fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, a new study highlights the degree of vaccine hesitancy among patients with rheumatic disease to get the vaccine.

Halfpoint Images/Moment/Getty Images

The international study, published in May 2021 in Rheumatology, suggests that, of 1,258 patients surveyed worldwide, approximately 40% of patients said they would decline the vaccine.

“Sometimes it’s helpful to talk through their concerns,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, a University of Alabama at Birmingham rheumatologist who leads the American College of Rheumatology COVID-19 vaccine task force. Dr. Curtis recently reviewed the current literature on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

COVID-19 vaccinations for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic disease (AIIRD) is not straightforward. The immune response can be blunted by existing treatments and disease flares can occur.

Courtesy UAB Photo

The latest version of COVID-19 vaccination guidance for patients with RMDs from the ACR addresses vaccine use and implementation strategies. The guidance was issued as conditional or provisional because of the lack of evidence. Its principals are largely based on accepted practice for other vaccines. The guidance is routinely updated as new evidence becomes available. In his presentation at GRAPPA, Dr. Curtis reviewed the latest version of the guidance, which he emphasized is a guidance only and not meant to replace clinical judgment or shared decision-making with patients.

“This is a platform for you to start from as you are thinking about and discussing with your patient what might be best for him or her,” he said.
 

Concerns about impact of disease activity, treatments on effectiveness

Dr. Curtis highlighted some controversial aspects of COVID-19 vaccines, including heterogeneity of rheumatic diseases and treatment. Patients with AIIRD, including psoriatic arthritis, spondyloarthritis, RA, and lupus, are at higher risk for hospitalized COVID-19 and worse outcomes, and as such, they are prioritized for vaccination by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, for AIIRD patients, the immune response to COVID-19 vaccination can be “blunted,” according to one study. This may be because of glucocorticoid use or high disease activity. Immunomodulatory therapies, such as methotrexate, rituximab, and abatacept, are known to diminish vaccine response in general. The evidence is less clear for tumor necrosis factor and Janus kinase inhibitors, but they are thought to have the same impact on vaccine effectiveness, Dr. Curtis said. But in these cases, if the effect of a COVID-19 vaccine drops from 90% to 70%, the benefits of vaccination still far outweighs the risk of contracting COVID-19.

“Although we don’t have strong data with clinical outcomes for autoimmune disease or inflammatory disease patients, I’ll run a hypothetical and say: ‘Look, if this vaccine starts 90%-95% effective, even if it’s only 70% effective in somebody with lupus or vasculitis or someone who is taking a higher dose of steroids, I’ll take 70% over nothing if you chose to be vaccinated,’ ” he said.

The benefit of vaccination also outweighs the potential risk of disease flare, he said. The risk is real, but to date, no studies have pointed to a significant risk of disease flare or worsening. However, there have been reported cases of myocardial infarction.

Autoimmune manifestations after vaccination vs. after infection

Researchers writing in the June 29, 2021, issue of JAMA Cardiology described case reports of acute myocarditis in 23 people who received the BNT162b2-mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines. Plus, there been subsequent reports of myocarditis in other patients, wrote David K. Shay, MD, MPH, in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Shay is a member of the CDC COVID-19 Response Team.

“What do we know about this possible association between myocarditis and immunization with mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, and what remains unclear? Acute onset of chest pain 3-5 days after vaccine administration, usually after a second dose, is a typical feature of reported cases and suggests an immune-mediated mechanism,” he said.

The cases of myocarditis are concerning, Dr. Curtis said, but the risk is very low with relatively few cases reported among 161 million fully vaccinated people in the United States.

“Certainly, we’re not seeking to minimize that, but the risk of getting COVID and some of the downstream sequelae (autoimmune manifestations) almost certainly outweigh the risks for some of the autoimmune manifestations or worsening [condition],” he said.

A nationwide cohort study from Denmark of 58,052 patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease published in December 2020 in Rheumatology, found that patients with COVID-19 who had an inflammatory rheumatic disease were more likely to be admitted to the hospital, compared with COVID-19 patients without rheumatic disease. Patients with rheumatic disease had a higher risk of a severe COVID-19 outcome, but it was not a statistically significant difference, said Dr. Curtis, adding that the individual factors such as age and treatment currently received largely determines the risk. The strongest associations between hospitalization for COVID-19 and rheumatic disease were found among patients with RA, vasculitis, and connective tissue disease. Dr. Curtis noted that his own new study results show that risk of death from a COVID-19 infection is higher for patients who have RA or psoriatic arthritis.

There have been published case reports of patients who have developed new-onset lupus, vasculitis, Kawasaki disease, multiple sclerosis, autoimmune cytopenias, and other manifestations after a COVID-19 infection. “These authors suggest that perhaps there is a transient influence on the immune system that leads to a loss of self-tolerance to antigens,” Dr. Curtis said. “Some patients may have an underlying predisposition to autoimmunity in which infections just unmask as we sometimes see with other infections – chronic hepatitis for example.”
 

Antibody tests not recommended

In its COVID-19 guidance, the ACR, like the Food and Drug Administration, recommends health care providers not to routinely order antibody tests for IgM or IgG to assess immunity after a person has been vaccinated or to assess the need for vaccination in an unvaccinated person. More research is needed to determine if antibodies provide protection, and if so, for how long and how much. Plus, the antibody testing process is not clear cut, so ordering the wrong test is possible, Dr. Curtis said. The tests should clearly differentiate between spike proteins or nucleocapsid proteins.

“The bottom line is that you might be ordering the wrong lab test. Even if you’re ordering the right lab test, I would assert that you probably don’t know what to do with the result. I would then ask you, ‘Does it mean they are protected? Does it mean they are not protected? What are you going to do with the results?’ ” he asked.

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, a specialist in infectious diseases at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said that, at this point, it’s too early to know what antibody tests mean. “I think it is tempting to test some people, especially patients on B-cell depletion therapy and those on mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). Outside of those two types of [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] users, I wouldn’t be tempted to test. We don’t know how well protected they are, but we assume they are protected to some extent,” he said. “They’re probably partially protected and as such, they should take the same precautions they were taking a year ago: masking and avoidance. I think that’s just how it’s going to be for those folks for another year until we get this thing sorted out.”
 

Modifications to existing rheumatic disease therapies

In its COVID-19 vaccine guidance, the ACR issued recommendations for some common rheumatic disease therapeutics before and/or after the COVID-19 vaccine is administered. The modifications are limited to MMF, methotrexate, JAK inhibitors, subcutaneous abatacept, acetaminophen, and NSAIDs. The recommendations include: hold mycophenolate for 1 week after vaccination if disease is stable; for patients with well-controlled disease, hold methotrexate for 1 week after each of the two mRNA vaccine doses; for patients with well-controlled disease receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, hold methotrexate for 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine; hold JAK inhibitors for 1 week after each dose; for abatacept subcutaneous, hold treatment for 1 week before and after the first dose; and in patients with stable disease, hold acetaminophen and NSAIDs for 24 hours before vaccination, because taking either before vaccination could blunt the vaccine response, Dr. Curtis said.

Holding medication, such as methotrexate, could risk having a flare-up of disease. One study showed the rate of disease flare-up because of withholding standard treatment may be up to 11%, compared with 5.1% in patients who did not hold treatment, he said.

“The point is, if you hold some of these therapies, whether methotrexate or tofacitinib, arthritis will get a little bit worse,” Dr. Curtis said.

A study published on the preprint server medRxiv found that immunosuppressive therapies blunted the response of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases, most significantly with glucocorticoids and B-cell therapies.

“That’s what’s led to a lot of the guidance statements about holding treatments for a week or 2 for rituximab. If you’re giving it at 6-month intervals, you want to schedule the vaccine dose or series at about month 5, or a month before the next cycle,” he said.

Talking with patients about COVID-19 vaccination

In talking with patients about vaccine safety, Dr. Curtis recommends addressing a few common misperceptions. First, COVID-19 viruses were not created with a live-attenuated virus (which would be contraindicated for immunosuppressed patients). “You can put patients’ mind at ease that none of the vaccine candidates or platforms – even those that say viral vector – put patients at risk for contracting the infection. These are nonreplicating. So, it’s like you extracted the engine that would allow this virus to replicate,” he said.

Of three COVID-19 vaccinations available in the United States, is one better than the other? The ACR COVID-19 vaccine task force did not reach a consensus on safety profiles of the vaccines because, without head-to-head comparisons, it’s impossible to know, he said.

In talking with patients, review the protocol for continuing with prescribed treatment modalities before the patient receives a COVID-19 vaccine. Safety concerns and concerns about the possibility of having a disease flare-up should be addressed, he said.

The relationship between adherence and benefit for those prescribed continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) devices is clear. However, a Medicare-reimbursement rule that demands adherence blind to circumstances appears to be denying access to many low-income patients, according to an analysis delivered at the annual CHEST Health Policy and Advocacy Committee (HPAC) conference sponsored by the American College of Chest Physicians.

Over the past several years, adherence to CPAP has improved substantially following a series of studies that demonstrated the device must be used at least 4 hours per night to achieve improved outcomes. Medicare defines adherence as using the device more than 4 hours per night for 70% of nights (21 nights) during a consecutive 30-day period any time in the first 3 months of initial usage.

However, the studies that show improved adherence show a lag among those in the lowest income quartile, according to Sairam Parthasarathy, MD, FCCP, of the Center for Sleep and Circadian Sciences at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

When patients are followed for a year after being prescribed CPAP, the lag for the low-income patients is not seen immediately. Rather, adherence studies show a steady climb in adherence in all income groups initially, but “right at 90 days, there is a marked change,” according to Dr. Parthasarathy.

This change happens to coincide with Medicare policy that denies reimbursement for CPAP after 90 days if patients are not using CPAP at least 4 hours per night, which is the threshold associated with benefit.

The correlation between this policy and income disparity is “observational” rather than proven, but Dr. Parthasarathy is confident it is valid. He believes it is a prime example of a health inequity driven by poorly conceived policy.

“The 90-day rule needs to go,” he said, calling the choice of threshold “man-made.”

“This is the only disease condition for which a therapy is withheld if it is not used according to some magical threshold,” he said. “I cannot think of a more draconian policy.”

In an effort to illustrate the problem, he likened this policy to withholding insulin in a diabetes patient judged nonadherent because of a persistently elevated Hb1Ac.

At 90 days, adherence rates remain at a relatively early point in their upwards trajectory in all income groups. One year later, adherence rates are more than twice as high in the highest income relative to the lowest quartile and approaching twofold greater in quartiles 2 and 3.

“It takes time to get used to these devices,” Dr. Parthasarathy explained. Given studies demonstrating that “more is better” with CPAP, whether measured by sleep scales or quality of life, Dr. Parthasarathy advocates strategies to improve adherence, but he questioned an approach that penalizes low-income patients for a definition of nonadherence at an arbitrary point in time. He suggested it is just one example of health policies that ultimately penalize individuals with lower incomes.

“There are millions of dollars spent every year on understanding the genetics of disease, but the biggest influence on how long you live is the ZIP code of where you live,” said Dr. Parthasarathy, referring to zip codes as a surrogate for socioeconomic status.

This is not to imply, however, that genetics are irrelevant, Dr. Parthasarathy said. He pointed to data linking genetic traits that determine melanin levels and circadian rhythms. He noted one genotype associated with later bedtimes that is more commonly found in African Americans and Hispanics. This has relevance to a variety of sleep disorders and other health conditions, but it might serve as a fundamental disadvantage for children with this genotype, Dr. Parthasarathy maintained. He cited a study conducted at his center that found Hispanic children sleep on average 30 minutes less than white children (Sleep Med. 2016;18:61-66). The reason was simple. Hispanic children went to bed 30 minutes later but rose at the same time.

The later bedtimes and reduced sleep could potentially be one obstacle among many, such as the need for lower income patients to hold several jobs, that prevent these patients from becoming accustomed to CPAP at the same speed as wealthier patients, according to Dr. Parthasarathy.

The current Medicare policy that withholds CPAP on the basis of a single definition of nonadherence appears to lead directly to an inequity in treatment of sleep apnea, Dr. Parthasarathy maintained. Dr. Parthasarathy, who was a coauthor of a recently published paper on addressing disparities in sleep health (Chest. 2021;159:1232-40), described this issue as part of a larger problem of the failure to deliver health care that is sensitive to the cultural and racial differences underlying these inequities.

Kathleen Sarmiento, MD, FCCP, Director, VISN 21 Sleep Clinical Resource Hub for the San Francisco VA Health Care System, agreed. Dr. Sarmiento, a member of the CHEST Health Policy and Advocacy Committee and the moderator of the session in which Dr. Parthasarathy presented his data, said, “This type of issue is exactly what our Committee [HPAC] would like to address.”

The association between the 90-day Medicare rule for CPAP reimbursement and reduced access to this therapy among patients of lower economic status is compelling, she indicated. Within the goal of advocacy for health policies that will reduce inequities, Dr. Sarmiento explained that the committee is attempting to identify and reverse the source of these types of disparity.

“Specific rules or regulations are actionable targets to effect broader change in health care access and health care delivery,” said Dr. Sarmiento, alluding to the mission of HPAC.

Dr. Parthasarathy and Dr. Sarmiento report no relevant conflicts of interest.

The relationship between adherence and benefit for those prescribed continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) devices is clear. However, a Medicare-reimbursement rule that demands adherence blind to circumstances appears to be denying access to many low-income patients, according to an analysis delivered at the annual CHEST Health Policy and Advocacy Committee (HPAC) conference sponsored by the American College of Chest Physicians.

Over the past several years, adherence to CPAP has improved substantially following a series of studies that demonstrated the device must be used at least 4 hours per night to achieve improved outcomes. Medicare defines adherence as using the device more than 4 hours per night for 70% of nights (21 nights) during a consecutive 30-day period any time in the first 3 months of initial usage.

However, the studies that show improved adherence show a lag among those in the lowest income quartile, according to Sairam Parthasarathy, MD, FCCP, of the Center for Sleep and Circadian Sciences at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

When patients are followed for a year after being prescribed CPAP, the lag for the low-income patients is not seen immediately. Rather, adherence studies show a steady climb in adherence in all income groups initially, but “right at 90 days, there is a marked change,” according to Dr. Parthasarathy.

This change happens to coincide with Medicare policy that denies reimbursement for CPAP after 90 days if patients are not using CPAP at least 4 hours per night, which is the threshold associated with benefit.

The correlation between this policy and income disparity is “observational” rather than proven, but Dr. Parthasarathy is confident it is valid. He believes it is a prime example of a health inequity driven by poorly conceived policy.

“The 90-day rule needs to go,” he said, calling the choice of threshold “man-made.”

“This is the only disease condition for which a therapy is withheld if it is not used according to some magical threshold,” he said. “I cannot think of a more draconian policy.”

In an effort to illustrate the problem, he likened this policy to withholding insulin in a diabetes patient judged nonadherent because of a persistently elevated Hb1Ac.

At 90 days, adherence rates remain at a relatively early point in their upwards trajectory in all income groups. One year later, adherence rates are more than twice as high in the highest income relative to the lowest quartile and approaching twofold greater in quartiles 2 and 3.

“It takes time to get used to these devices,” Dr. Parthasarathy explained. Given studies demonstrating that “more is better” with CPAP, whether measured by sleep scales or quality of life, Dr. Parthasarathy advocates strategies to improve adherence, but he questioned an approach that penalizes low-income patients for a definition of nonadherence at an arbitrary point in time. He suggested it is just one example of health policies that ultimately penalize individuals with lower incomes.

“There are millions of dollars spent every year on understanding the genetics of disease, but the biggest influence on how long you live is the ZIP code of where you live,” said Dr. Parthasarathy, referring to zip codes as a surrogate for socioeconomic status.

This is not to imply, however, that genetics are irrelevant, Dr. Parthasarathy said. He pointed to data linking genetic traits that determine melanin levels and circadian rhythms. He noted one genotype associated with later bedtimes that is more commonly found in African Americans and Hispanics. This has relevance to a variety of sleep disorders and other health conditions, but it might serve as a fundamental disadvantage for children with this genotype, Dr. Parthasarathy maintained. He cited a study conducted at his center that found Hispanic children sleep on average 30 minutes less than white children (Sleep Med. 2016;18:61-66). The reason was simple. Hispanic children went to bed 30 minutes later but rose at the same time.

The later bedtimes and reduced sleep could potentially be one obstacle among many, such as the need for lower income patients to hold several jobs, that prevent these patients from becoming accustomed to CPAP at the same speed as wealthier patients, according to Dr. Parthasarathy.

The current Medicare policy that withholds CPAP on the basis of a single definition of nonadherence appears to lead directly to an inequity in treatment of sleep apnea, Dr. Parthasarathy maintained. Dr. Parthasarathy, who was a coauthor of a recently published paper on addressing disparities in sleep health (Chest. 2021;159:1232-40), described this issue as part of a larger problem of the failure to deliver health care that is sensitive to the cultural and racial differences underlying these inequities.

Kathleen Sarmiento, MD, FCCP, Director, VISN 21 Sleep Clinical Resource Hub for the San Francisco VA Health Care System, agreed. Dr. Sarmiento, a member of the CHEST Health Policy and Advocacy Committee and the moderator of the session in which Dr. Parthasarathy presented his data, said, “This type of issue is exactly what our Committee [HPAC] would like to address.”

The association between the 90-day Medicare rule for CPAP reimbursement and reduced access to this therapy among patients of lower economic status is compelling, she indicated. Within the goal of advocacy for health policies that will reduce inequities, Dr. Sarmiento explained that the committee is attempting to identify and reverse the source of these types of disparity.

“Specific rules or regulations are actionable targets to effect broader change in health care access and health care delivery,” said Dr. Sarmiento, alluding to the mission of HPAC.

Dr. Parthasarathy and Dr. Sarmiento report no relevant conflicts of interest.

The relationship between adherence and benefit for those prescribed continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) devices is clear. However, a Medicare-reimbursement rule that demands adherence blind to circumstances appears to be denying access to many low-income patients, according to an analysis delivered at the annual CHEST Health Policy and Advocacy Committee (HPAC) conference sponsored by the American College of Chest Physicians.

Over the past several years, adherence to CPAP has improved substantially following a series of studies that demonstrated the device must be used at least 4 hours per night to achieve improved outcomes. Medicare defines adherence as using the device more than 4 hours per night for 70% of nights (21 nights) during a consecutive 30-day period any time in the first 3 months of initial usage.

However, the studies that show improved adherence show a lag among those in the lowest income quartile, according to Sairam Parthasarathy, MD, FCCP, of the Center for Sleep and Circadian Sciences at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

When patients are followed for a year after being prescribed CPAP, the lag for the low-income patients is not seen immediately. Rather, adherence studies show a steady climb in adherence in all income groups initially, but “right at 90 days, there is a marked change,” according to Dr. Parthasarathy.

This change happens to coincide with Medicare policy that denies reimbursement for CPAP after 90 days if patients are not using CPAP at least 4 hours per night, which is the threshold associated with benefit.

The correlation between this policy and income disparity is “observational” rather than proven, but Dr. Parthasarathy is confident it is valid. He believes it is a prime example of a health inequity driven by poorly conceived policy.

“The 90-day rule needs to go,” he said, calling the choice of threshold “man-made.”

“This is the only disease condition for which a therapy is withheld if it is not used according to some magical threshold,” he said. “I cannot think of a more draconian policy.”

In an effort to illustrate the problem, he likened this policy to withholding insulin in a diabetes patient judged nonadherent because of a persistently elevated Hb1Ac.

At 90 days, adherence rates remain at a relatively early point in their upwards trajectory in all income groups. One year later, adherence rates are more than twice as high in the highest income relative to the lowest quartile and approaching twofold greater in quartiles 2 and 3.

“It takes time to get used to these devices,” Dr. Parthasarathy explained. Given studies demonstrating that “more is better” with CPAP, whether measured by sleep scales or quality of life, Dr. Parthasarathy advocates strategies to improve adherence, but he questioned an approach that penalizes low-income patients for a definition of nonadherence at an arbitrary point in time. He suggested it is just one example of health policies that ultimately penalize individuals with lower incomes.

“There are millions of dollars spent every year on understanding the genetics of disease, but the biggest influence on how long you live is the ZIP code of where you live,” said Dr. Parthasarathy, referring to zip codes as a surrogate for socioeconomic status.

This is not to imply, however, that genetics are irrelevant, Dr. Parthasarathy said. He pointed to data linking genetic traits that determine melanin levels and circadian rhythms. He noted one genotype associated with later bedtimes that is more commonly found in African Americans and Hispanics. This has relevance to a variety of sleep disorders and other health conditions, but it might serve as a fundamental disadvantage for children with this genotype, Dr. Parthasarathy maintained. He cited a study conducted at his center that found Hispanic children sleep on average 30 minutes less than white children (Sleep Med. 2016;18:61-66). The reason was simple. Hispanic children went to bed 30 minutes later but rose at the same time.

The later bedtimes and reduced sleep could potentially be one obstacle among many, such as the need for lower income patients to hold several jobs, that prevent these patients from becoming accustomed to CPAP at the same speed as wealthier patients, according to Dr. Parthasarathy.

The current Medicare policy that withholds CPAP on the basis of a single definition of nonadherence appears to lead directly to an inequity in treatment of sleep apnea, Dr. Parthasarathy maintained. Dr. Parthasarathy, who was a coauthor of a recently published paper on addressing disparities in sleep health (Chest. 2021;159:1232-40), described this issue as part of a larger problem of the failure to deliver health care that is sensitive to the cultural and racial differences underlying these inequities.

Kathleen Sarmiento, MD, FCCP, Director, VISN 21 Sleep Clinical Resource Hub for the San Francisco VA Health Care System, agreed. Dr. Sarmiento, a member of the CHEST Health Policy and Advocacy Committee and the moderator of the session in which Dr. Parthasarathy presented his data, said, “This type of issue is exactly what our Committee [HPAC] would like to address.”

The association between the 90-day Medicare rule for CPAP reimbursement and reduced access to this therapy among patients of lower economic status is compelling, she indicated. Within the goal of advocacy for health policies that will reduce inequities, Dr. Sarmiento explained that the committee is attempting to identify and reverse the source of these types of disparity.

“Specific rules or regulations are actionable targets to effect broader change in health care access and health care delivery,” said Dr. Sarmiento, alluding to the mission of HPAC.

Dr. Parthasarathy and Dr. Sarmiento report no relevant conflicts of interest.

The long-acting drug lenacapavir, a first-in-class capsid inhibitor, shows sustained viral suppression in a small cohort of heavily treatment-experienced patients with multidrug-resistant HIV at 26 weeks when combined with an optimized antiretroviral therapy. With regulatory approval, lenacapavir could become the only HIV-1 treatment option given every 6 months.
 

“These data support the use of lenacapavir in patients with multidrug-resistant viruses, and according to its long half-life of two subcutaneous injections per year, [it] could help reduce pill burden,” first author Jean-Michel Molina, MD, PhD, professor of infectious diseases and head of the infectious diseases department at the Saint-Louis and Lariboisière Hospitals, Paris, said in an interview.

Presenting the updated findings from the phase 2/3 CAPELLA trial at the virtual annual meeting of the International AIDS Society conference, Dr. Molina underscored the need for longer-term treatments.

“These patients with multidrug resistances are usually those who have not been fully adherent to their regimen,” he said. “Being able to provide the drug, given every 6 months subcutaneously, provides an ideal treatment for overcoming resistance and lack of adherence.”

The study showed that, after 26 weeks, 81% of heavily treatment-experienced people with HIV in a randomized cohort who were treated with a subcutaneous injection of lenacapavir (927 mg) combined with an optimized background antiretroviral regimen achieved sustained virologic suppression, with an undetectable viral load (<50 copies/mL).

In addition, the lenacapavir-treated patients had a clinically meaningful mean increase in CD4 counts of 81 cells/mcL over the 26 weeks.

The drug was well tolerated, with no drug-related serious adverse events or adverse events leading to discontinuation. The most common adverse events were injection-site reactions, which occurred in 56% of participants, with most being mild or moderate.

Importantly, four participants developed emergent resistances to lenacapavir. One was suppressed with a change in the background regimen and two others were suppressed without a change in regimen.

“We know that these mutations affect viral fitness,” Dr. Molina said in an interview. “We need more studies to assess the real impact of these mutations.”

Dr. Molina noted that a phase 2 study is already underway to evaluate how a pairing of lenacapavir with fellow investigational long-acting drug islatravir (Merck) could offset the risk of developing resistances.

Asked by an audience member whether a two-drug regimen with something like islatravir is likely to successfully prevent resistances, Dr. Molina responded that “it’s too early to know what’s going to happen with [combinations], but these first results are really encouraging when you see the very high rate of being fully suppressed after 26 weeks. The efficacy that we’ve seen after [a previous 2-week analysis] is long lasting.”
 

Lenacapavir targets multiple viral stages

Unlike other antiviral drugs that target just a single stage of viral replication, lenacapavir takes aim at multiple steps in the viral life cycle, including capsid-mediated uptake of HIV-1 proviral DNA, virus assembly and release, and capsid core formation, Dr. Molina explained.

The CAPELLA trial included participants at research centers in North America, Europe, and Asia, with a median age of 52 years; 25% were female, 38% were Black, and their mean HIV-1 RNA (viral load) was 4.17 log copies/mL.

Overall, 72 patients were divided into two cohorts of 36 patients each, including a randomized and nonrandomized cohort. Dr. Molina primarily reported results from the randomized group.

In that group, patients received either a lead-in of oral lenacapavir (600 mg on day 1 and 2 and 300 mg on day 8) or placebo, in combination with patients’ current failing drug regimens in both groups.

At day 15, all participants were switched to the investigator-selected, optimized background treatment regimen, tailored according to patients’ drug-resistance profiles, and those in the lenacapavir group received the subcutaneous injection of lenacapavir; those in the placebo group were switched to the oral lead-in, followed by subcutaneous lenacapavir every 6 months.

Combined data that included six patients from the nonrandomized cohort showed that 79% of patients had a viral load of less than 50 copies/mL at week 26. The 81% viral suppression rate represented the randomized group (29 of 36).

International AIDS Society cochair Hendrik Streeck, MD, director of the Institute of Virology and Institute for HIV Research at the University Bonn (Germany), said a twice-a-year drug could possibly have profound benefits with a reduction in daily pill burden.

“What makes this an interesting drug is that it is long acting, so one can imagine it has the potential to treat individuals such as those who are not very adherent to the antiretroviral therapy, or who can’t easily access treatment, for example in resource-limited settings,” he said in an interview. “The option to treat patients for the next months in advance could be a very important next step.”
 

Further data from CALIBRATE

Additional data on lenacapavir from the phase 2 CALIBRATE study, presented in a separate session, further showed the drug, given orally or subcutaneously in combination with oral daily emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide, resulted in high rates of viral suppression among 94% of 157 treatment-naive patients after 28 weeks.

Commenting on the research, session moderator Alexandra Calmy, MD, PhD, of the HIV/AIDS unit and LIPO & Metabolism group, infectious diseases division, Geneva University Hospitals, noted the study offered “interesting data indeed” – with some caveats: “Why position a new drug class in naive patients [when] we already have good options, available for a large range of various populations?”

Dr. Calmy noted that, in general, lenacapavir “would certainly be an added value with an adapted 6-monthly companion drug.”

But she raised another key issue: “When will we have data on pregnancy that would allow lenacapavir to really be a game changer worldwide?”

The study was funded by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Molina reported receiving research funding from Gilead and being on advisory boards for Gilead, Merck, ViiV, and Janssen. Dr. Calmy and Dr. Streeck reported no relevant financial relationships.

The long-acting drug lenacapavir, a first-in-class capsid inhibitor, shows sustained viral suppression in a small cohort of heavily treatment-experienced patients with multidrug-resistant HIV at 26 weeks when combined with an optimized antiretroviral therapy. With regulatory approval, lenacapavir could become the only HIV-1 treatment option given every 6 months.
 

“These data support the use of lenacapavir in patients with multidrug-resistant viruses, and according to its long half-life of two subcutaneous injections per year, [it] could help reduce pill burden,” first author Jean-Michel Molina, MD, PhD, professor of infectious diseases and head of the infectious diseases department at the Saint-Louis and Lariboisière Hospitals, Paris, said in an interview.

Presenting the updated findings from the phase 2/3 CAPELLA trial at the virtual annual meeting of the International AIDS Society conference, Dr. Molina underscored the need for longer-term treatments.

“These patients with multidrug resistances are usually those who have not been fully adherent to their regimen,” he said. “Being able to provide the drug, given every 6 months subcutaneously, provides an ideal treatment for overcoming resistance and lack of adherence.”

The study showed that, after 26 weeks, 81% of heavily treatment-experienced people with HIV in a randomized cohort who were treated with a subcutaneous injection of lenacapavir (927 mg) combined with an optimized background antiretroviral regimen achieved sustained virologic suppression, with an undetectable viral load (<50 copies/mL).

In addition, the lenacapavir-treated patients had a clinically meaningful mean increase in CD4 counts of 81 cells/mcL over the 26 weeks.

The drug was well tolerated, with no drug-related serious adverse events or adverse events leading to discontinuation. The most common adverse events were injection-site reactions, which occurred in 56% of participants, with most being mild or moderate.

Importantly, four participants developed emergent resistances to lenacapavir. One was suppressed with a change in the background regimen and two others were suppressed without a change in regimen.

“We know that these mutations affect viral fitness,” Dr. Molina said in an interview. “We need more studies to assess the real impact of these mutations.”

Dr. Molina noted that a phase 2 study is already underway to evaluate how a pairing of lenacapavir with fellow investigational long-acting drug islatravir (Merck) could offset the risk of developing resistances.

Asked by an audience member whether a two-drug regimen with something like islatravir is likely to successfully prevent resistances, Dr. Molina responded that “it’s too early to know what’s going to happen with [combinations], but these first results are really encouraging when you see the very high rate of being fully suppressed after 26 weeks. The efficacy that we’ve seen after [a previous 2-week analysis] is long lasting.”
 

Lenacapavir targets multiple viral stages

Unlike other antiviral drugs that target just a single stage of viral replication, lenacapavir takes aim at multiple steps in the viral life cycle, including capsid-mediated uptake of HIV-1 proviral DNA, virus assembly and release, and capsid core formation, Dr. Molina explained.

The CAPELLA trial included participants at research centers in North America, Europe, and Asia, with a median age of 52 years; 25% were female, 38% were Black, and their mean HIV-1 RNA (viral load) was 4.17 log copies/mL.

Overall, 72 patients were divided into two cohorts of 36 patients each, including a randomized and nonrandomized cohort. Dr. Molina primarily reported results from the randomized group.

In that group, patients received either a lead-in of oral lenacapavir (600 mg on day 1 and 2 and 300 mg on day 8) or placebo, in combination with patients’ current failing drug regimens in both groups.

At day 15, all participants were switched to the investigator-selected, optimized background treatment regimen, tailored according to patients’ drug-resistance profiles, and those in the lenacapavir group received the subcutaneous injection of lenacapavir; those in the placebo group were switched to the oral lead-in, followed by subcutaneous lenacapavir every 6 months.

Combined data that included six patients from the nonrandomized cohort showed that 79% of patients had a viral load of less than 50 copies/mL at week 26. The 81% viral suppression rate represented the randomized group (29 of 36).

International AIDS Society cochair Hendrik Streeck, MD, director of the Institute of Virology and Institute for HIV Research at the University Bonn (Germany), said a twice-a-year drug could possibly have profound benefits with a reduction in daily pill burden.

“What makes this an interesting drug is that it is long acting, so one can imagine it has the potential to treat individuals such as those who are not very adherent to the antiretroviral therapy, or who can’t easily access treatment, for example in resource-limited settings,” he said in an interview. “The option to treat patients for the next months in advance could be a very important next step.”
 

Further data from CALIBRATE

Additional data on lenacapavir from the phase 2 CALIBRATE study, presented in a separate session, further showed the drug, given orally or subcutaneously in combination with oral daily emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide, resulted in high rates of viral suppression among 94% of 157 treatment-naive patients after 28 weeks.

Commenting on the research, session moderator Alexandra Calmy, MD, PhD, of the HIV/AIDS unit and LIPO & Metabolism group, infectious diseases division, Geneva University Hospitals, noted the study offered “interesting data indeed” – with some caveats: “Why position a new drug class in naive patients [when] we already have good options, available for a large range of various populations?”

Dr. Calmy noted that, in general, lenacapavir “would certainly be an added value with an adapted 6-monthly companion drug.”

But she raised another key issue: “When will we have data on pregnancy that would allow lenacapavir to really be a game changer worldwide?”

The study was funded by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Molina reported receiving research funding from Gilead and being on advisory boards for Gilead, Merck, ViiV, and Janssen. Dr. Calmy and Dr. Streeck reported no relevant financial relationships.

The long-acting drug lenacapavir, a first-in-class capsid inhibitor, shows sustained viral suppression in a small cohort of heavily treatment-experienced patients with multidrug-resistant HIV at 26 weeks when combined with an optimized antiretroviral therapy. With regulatory approval, lenacapavir could become the only HIV-1 treatment option given every 6 months.
 

“These data support the use of lenacapavir in patients with multidrug-resistant viruses, and according to its long half-life of two subcutaneous injections per year, [it] could help reduce pill burden,” first author Jean-Michel Molina, MD, PhD, professor of infectious diseases and head of the infectious diseases department at the Saint-Louis and Lariboisière Hospitals, Paris, said in an interview.

Presenting the updated findings from the phase 2/3 CAPELLA trial at the virtual annual meeting of the International AIDS Society conference, Dr. Molina underscored the need for longer-term treatments.

“These patients with multidrug resistances are usually those who have not been fully adherent to their regimen,” he said. “Being able to provide the drug, given every 6 months subcutaneously, provides an ideal treatment for overcoming resistance and lack of adherence.”

The study showed that, after 26 weeks, 81% of heavily treatment-experienced people with HIV in a randomized cohort who were treated with a subcutaneous injection of lenacapavir (927 mg) combined with an optimized background antiretroviral regimen achieved sustained virologic suppression, with an undetectable viral load (<50 copies/mL).

In addition, the lenacapavir-treated patients had a clinically meaningful mean increase in CD4 counts of 81 cells/mcL over the 26 weeks.

The drug was well tolerated, with no drug-related serious adverse events or adverse events leading to discontinuation. The most common adverse events were injection-site reactions, which occurred in 56% of participants, with most being mild or moderate.

Importantly, four participants developed emergent resistances to lenacapavir. One was suppressed with a change in the background regimen and two others were suppressed without a change in regimen.

“We know that these mutations affect viral fitness,” Dr. Molina said in an interview. “We need more studies to assess the real impact of these mutations.”

Dr. Molina noted that a phase 2 study is already underway to evaluate how a pairing of lenacapavir with fellow investigational long-acting drug islatravir (Merck) could offset the risk of developing resistances.

Asked by an audience member whether a two-drug regimen with something like islatravir is likely to successfully prevent resistances, Dr. Molina responded that “it’s too early to know what’s going to happen with [combinations], but these first results are really encouraging when you see the very high rate of being fully suppressed after 26 weeks. The efficacy that we’ve seen after [a previous 2-week analysis] is long lasting.”
 

Lenacapavir targets multiple viral stages

Unlike other antiviral drugs that target just a single stage of viral replication, lenacapavir takes aim at multiple steps in the viral life cycle, including capsid-mediated uptake of HIV-1 proviral DNA, virus assembly and release, and capsid core formation, Dr. Molina explained.

The CAPELLA trial included participants at research centers in North America, Europe, and Asia, with a median age of 52 years; 25% were female, 38% were Black, and their mean HIV-1 RNA (viral load) was 4.17 log copies/mL.

Overall, 72 patients were divided into two cohorts of 36 patients each, including a randomized and nonrandomized cohort. Dr. Molina primarily reported results from the randomized group.

In that group, patients received either a lead-in of oral lenacapavir (600 mg on day 1 and 2 and 300 mg on day 8) or placebo, in combination with patients’ current failing drug regimens in both groups.

At day 15, all participants were switched to the investigator-selected, optimized background treatment regimen, tailored according to patients’ drug-resistance profiles, and those in the lenacapavir group received the subcutaneous injection of lenacapavir; those in the placebo group were switched to the oral lead-in, followed by subcutaneous lenacapavir every 6 months.

Combined data that included six patients from the nonrandomized cohort showed that 79% of patients had a viral load of less than 50 copies/mL at week 26. The 81% viral suppression rate represented the randomized group (29 of 36).

International AIDS Society cochair Hendrik Streeck, MD, director of the Institute of Virology and Institute for HIV Research at the University Bonn (Germany), said a twice-a-year drug could possibly have profound benefits with a reduction in daily pill burden.

“What makes this an interesting drug is that it is long acting, so one can imagine it has the potential to treat individuals such as those who are not very adherent to the antiretroviral therapy, or who can’t easily access treatment, for example in resource-limited settings,” he said in an interview. “The option to treat patients for the next months in advance could be a very important next step.”
 

Further data from CALIBRATE

Additional data on lenacapavir from the phase 2 CALIBRATE study, presented in a separate session, further showed the drug, given orally or subcutaneously in combination with oral daily emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide, resulted in high rates of viral suppression among 94% of 157 treatment-naive patients after 28 weeks.

Commenting on the research, session moderator Alexandra Calmy, MD, PhD, of the HIV/AIDS unit and LIPO & Metabolism group, infectious diseases division, Geneva University Hospitals, noted the study offered “interesting data indeed” – with some caveats: “Why position a new drug class in naive patients [when] we already have good options, available for a large range of various populations?”

Dr. Calmy noted that, in general, lenacapavir “would certainly be an added value with an adapted 6-monthly companion drug.”

But she raised another key issue: “When will we have data on pregnancy that would allow lenacapavir to really be a game changer worldwide?”

The study was funded by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Molina reported receiving research funding from Gilead and being on advisory boards for Gilead, Merck, ViiV, and Janssen. Dr. Calmy and Dr. Streeck reported no relevant financial relationships.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Octagam 10% as the first intravenous immunoglobulin with an indication specifically for adult dermatomyositis, according to a statement from manufacturer Octapharma USA.

Dermatomyositis is a rare, idiopathic autoimmune disorder that affects approximately 10 out of every million people in the United States, mainly adults in their late 40s to early 60s, according to the company, but children aged 5-15 years can be affected. The disease is characterized by skin rashes, chronic muscle inflammation, progressive muscle weakness, and risk for mortality that is three times higher than for the general population.

There are no previously approved treatments for dermatomyositis prior to Octagam 10%, which also is indicated for chronic immune thrombocytopenic purpura in adults.

The approval for dermatomyositis was based on the results of a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (the ProDERM trial) that included 95 adult patients at 36 sites worldwide, with 17 sites in the United States. In the trial, 78.7% of patients with dermatomyositis who were randomized to receive 2 g/kg of Octagam 10% every 4 weeks showed response at 16 weeks, compared with 43.8% of patients who received placebo. Response was based on the 2016 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology myositis response criteria. Placebo patients who switched to intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) during a trial extension had response rates at week 40 similar to the original patients at week 16.

“The study gives clinicians much more confidence in the efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin and provides valuable information about what type of patient is best suited for the treatment,” Rohit Aggarwal, MD, medical director of the Arthritis and Autoimmunity Center at the University of Pittsburgh and a member of the ProDERM study Steering Committee, said in the Octapharma statement.

Safety and tolerability were similar to profiles seen with other IVIG medications, according to the statement. The medication does carry a boxed warning from its chronic ITP approval, cautioning about the potential for thrombosis, renal dysfunction, and acute renal failure.

The most common adverse reactions reported by dermatomyositis patients in the ProDERM trial were headache, fever, nausea, vomiting, increased blood pressure, chills, musculoskeletal pain, increased heart rate, dyspnea, and reactions at the infusion sites.

Read the full prescribing information here.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Octagam 10% as the first intravenous immunoglobulin with an indication specifically for adult dermatomyositis, according to a statement from manufacturer Octapharma USA.

Dermatomyositis is a rare, idiopathic autoimmune disorder that affects approximately 10 out of every million people in the United States, mainly adults in their late 40s to early 60s, according to the company, but children aged 5-15 years can be affected. The disease is characterized by skin rashes, chronic muscle inflammation, progressive muscle weakness, and risk for mortality that is three times higher than for the general population.

There are no previously approved treatments for dermatomyositis prior to Octagam 10%, which also is indicated for chronic immune thrombocytopenic purpura in adults.

The approval for dermatomyositis was based on the results of a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (the ProDERM trial) that included 95 adult patients at 36 sites worldwide, with 17 sites in the United States. In the trial, 78.7% of patients with dermatomyositis who were randomized to receive 2 g/kg of Octagam 10% every 4 weeks showed response at 16 weeks, compared with 43.8% of patients who received placebo. Response was based on the 2016 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology myositis response criteria. Placebo patients who switched to intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) during a trial extension had response rates at week 40 similar to the original patients at week 16.

“The study gives clinicians much more confidence in the efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin and provides valuable information about what type of patient is best suited for the treatment,” Rohit Aggarwal, MD, medical director of the Arthritis and Autoimmunity Center at the University of Pittsburgh and a member of the ProDERM study Steering Committee, said in the Octapharma statement.

Safety and tolerability were similar to profiles seen with other IVIG medications, according to the statement. The medication does carry a boxed warning from its chronic ITP approval, cautioning about the potential for thrombosis, renal dysfunction, and acute renal failure.

The most common adverse reactions reported by dermatomyositis patients in the ProDERM trial were headache, fever, nausea, vomiting, increased blood pressure, chills, musculoskeletal pain, increased heart rate, dyspnea, and reactions at the infusion sites.

Read the full prescribing information here.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Octagam 10% as the first intravenous immunoglobulin with an indication specifically for adult dermatomyositis, according to a statement from manufacturer Octapharma USA.

Dermatomyositis is a rare, idiopathic autoimmune disorder that affects approximately 10 out of every million people in the United States, mainly adults in their late 40s to early 60s, according to the company, but children aged 5-15 years can be affected. The disease is characterized by skin rashes, chronic muscle inflammation, progressive muscle weakness, and risk for mortality that is three times higher than for the general population.

There are no previously approved treatments for dermatomyositis prior to Octagam 10%, which also is indicated for chronic immune thrombocytopenic purpura in adults.

The approval for dermatomyositis was based on the results of a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (the ProDERM trial) that included 95 adult patients at 36 sites worldwide, with 17 sites in the United States. In the trial, 78.7% of patients with dermatomyositis who were randomized to receive 2 g/kg of Octagam 10% every 4 weeks showed response at 16 weeks, compared with 43.8% of patients who received placebo. Response was based on the 2016 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology myositis response criteria. Placebo patients who switched to intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) during a trial extension had response rates at week 40 similar to the original patients at week 16.

“The study gives clinicians much more confidence in the efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin and provides valuable information about what type of patient is best suited for the treatment,” Rohit Aggarwal, MD, medical director of the Arthritis and Autoimmunity Center at the University of Pittsburgh and a member of the ProDERM study Steering Committee, said in the Octapharma statement.

Safety and tolerability were similar to profiles seen with other IVIG medications, according to the statement. The medication does carry a boxed warning from its chronic ITP approval, cautioning about the potential for thrombosis, renal dysfunction, and acute renal failure.

The most common adverse reactions reported by dermatomyositis patients in the ProDERM trial were headache, fever, nausea, vomiting, increased blood pressure, chills, musculoskeletal pain, increased heart rate, dyspnea, and reactions at the infusion sites.

Read the full prescribing information here.

In patients with intermediate risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease along with risk-enhancing factors, coronary artery calcium scoring may help more precisely calculate their need for statin therapy.

Furthermore, when the need for statin treatment isn’t so clear and patients need additional risk assessment, the scoring can provide further information to personalize clinical decision making, according to a cross-sectional study of 1,688 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) published in JAMA Cardiology.

And regardless of coronary artery calcium (CAC), a low ankle brachial index (ABI) score is a marker for statin therapy, the study found.

The study looked at CAC scoring in the context of ABI and other risk-enhancing factors identified in the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology cholesterol management guidelines: a family history of premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), lipid and inflammatory biomarkers, chronic kidney disease, chronic inflammatory conditions, premature menopause or preeclampsia, and South Asian ancestry.

Any number of these factors can indicate the need for statins in people with borderline or intermediate risk. The guidelines also call for selective use of CAC to aid the decision-making process for statin therapy when the risk for developing atherosclerosis isn’t so clear.

“The novel risk-enhancing factors are not perfect,” said lead author Jaideep Patel, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins Heart Center at Greater Baltimore Medical Center. He noted that the 2018 dyslipidemia guidelines suggested the risk for cardiovascular events rises when new risk-enhancing factors emerge, and that it was difficult to predict the extent to which each enhancer could change the 10-year risk. 
 

Utility of CAC

“In this setting, the most significant finding that supports the utility of CAC scoring is when CAC is absent – a CAC of 0 – even in the setting of any of these enhancers, whether it be single or multiple, the 10-year risk remains extremely low – at the very least below the accepted threshold to initiate statin therapy,” Dr. Patel said.

That threshold is below the 7.5% 10-year ASCVD incidence rate. Over the 12-year mean study follow-up, the ASCVD incidence rate among patients with a CAC score of 0 for all risk-enhancing factors was 7.5 events per 1,000 person years, with one exception: ABI had an incidence rate of 10.4 events per 1,000 person years. “A low ABI score should trigger statin initiation irrespective of CAC score,” Dr. Patel said.

The study found a CAC score of 0 in 45.7% of those with one or two risk-enhancing factors versus 40.3% in those with three or more. “Across all the risk enhancers (except low ABI), the prevalence of CAC of 0 was greater than 50% in women; that is, enhancers overestimate risk,” Dr. Patel said. “The prevalence of CAC of 0 was approximately 40% across all risk enhancers; that is, enhancers overestimate risk.”

Dr. Patel said previous studies have suggested the risk of a major cardiovascular event was almost identical for statin and nonstatin users with a CAC score of 0. “If there is uncertainty about statin use after the physician-patient risk discussion,” he said, “CAC scoring may be helpful to guide the use of statin therapy.”

Senior author Mahmoud Al Rifai, MD, MPH, added: “For example, if CAC was absent, a statin could be deprescribed if there’s disutility on the part of the patient, with ongoing lifestyle and risk factor modification efforts.” Dr. Al Rifai is a cardiology fellow at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Dr. Patel said: “Alternatively, if CAC was present, then it would be prudent to continue statin therapy.”

While South Asian ethnicity is a risk enhancing factor, the investigators acknowledged that MESA didn’t recruit this population group.
 

Study confirms guidelines

The study “supports the contention of the [AHA/ACC] guidelines that, in people who are in this intermediate risk range, there may be factors that either favor statin treatment or suggest that statin treatment could be deferred,” said Neil J. Stone, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and author of the 2013 ASCVD risk calculator. “The guidelines pointed out that risk-enhancing factors may be associated with an increase in lifetime risk, not necessarily short term, and so could inform a more personalized risk discussion.”

The study findings validate the utility of CAC for guiding statin therapy, Dr. Stone said. “For those who have felt that a calcium score is not useful,” he said, “this is additional evidence to show that, in the context of making a decision in those at intermediate risk as proposed by the guidelines, a calcium score is indeed very useful.”

Dr. Stone added: “An important clinical point not mentioned by the authors is that, when the patient has a CAC score of 0 and risk factors, this may be exactly the time to be aggressive with lifestyle to prevent them from developing a positive CAC score and atherosclerosis, because once atherosclerosis is present, treatment may not restore the risk back to the original lower state.”

Dr. Patel, Dr. Al Rifai, and Dr. Stone have no relevant relationships to disclose. A number of study coauthors disclosed multiple financial relationships.

In patients with intermediate risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease along with risk-enhancing factors, coronary artery calcium scoring may help more precisely calculate their need for statin therapy.

Furthermore, when the need for statin treatment isn’t so clear and patients need additional risk assessment, the scoring can provide further information to personalize clinical decision making, according to a cross-sectional study of 1,688 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) published in JAMA Cardiology.

And regardless of coronary artery calcium (CAC), a low ankle brachial index (ABI) score is a marker for statin therapy, the study found.

The study looked at CAC scoring in the context of ABI and other risk-enhancing factors identified in the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology cholesterol management guidelines: a family history of premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), lipid and inflammatory biomarkers, chronic kidney disease, chronic inflammatory conditions, premature menopause or preeclampsia, and South Asian ancestry.

Any number of these factors can indicate the need for statins in people with borderline or intermediate risk. The guidelines also call for selective use of CAC to aid the decision-making process for statin therapy when the risk for developing atherosclerosis isn’t so clear.

“The novel risk-enhancing factors are not perfect,” said lead author Jaideep Patel, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins Heart Center at Greater Baltimore Medical Center. He noted that the 2018 dyslipidemia guidelines suggested the risk for cardiovascular events rises when new risk-enhancing factors emerge, and that it was difficult to predict the extent to which each enhancer could change the 10-year risk. 
 

Utility of CAC

“In this setting, the most significant finding that supports the utility of CAC scoring is when CAC is absent – a CAC of 0 – even in the setting of any of these enhancers, whether it be single or multiple, the 10-year risk remains extremely low – at the very least below the accepted threshold to initiate statin therapy,” Dr. Patel said.

That threshold is below the 7.5% 10-year ASCVD incidence rate. Over the 12-year mean study follow-up, the ASCVD incidence rate among patients with a CAC score of 0 for all risk-enhancing factors was 7.5 events per 1,000 person years, with one exception: ABI had an incidence rate of 10.4 events per 1,000 person years. “A low ABI score should trigger statin initiation irrespective of CAC score,” Dr. Patel said.

The study found a CAC score of 0 in 45.7% of those with one or two risk-enhancing factors versus 40.3% in those with three or more. “Across all the risk enhancers (except low ABI), the prevalence of CAC of 0 was greater than 50% in women; that is, enhancers overestimate risk,” Dr. Patel said. “The prevalence of CAC of 0 was approximately 40% across all risk enhancers; that is, enhancers overestimate risk.”

Dr. Patel said previous studies have suggested the risk of a major cardiovascular event was almost identical for statin and nonstatin users with a CAC score of 0. “If there is uncertainty about statin use after the physician-patient risk discussion,” he said, “CAC scoring may be helpful to guide the use of statin therapy.”

Senior author Mahmoud Al Rifai, MD, MPH, added: “For example, if CAC was absent, a statin could be deprescribed if there’s disutility on the part of the patient, with ongoing lifestyle and risk factor modification efforts.” Dr. Al Rifai is a cardiology fellow at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Dr. Patel said: “Alternatively, if CAC was present, then it would be prudent to continue statin therapy.”

While South Asian ethnicity is a risk enhancing factor, the investigators acknowledged that MESA didn’t recruit this population group.
 

Study confirms guidelines

The study “supports the contention of the [AHA/ACC] guidelines that, in people who are in this intermediate risk range, there may be factors that either favor statin treatment or suggest that statin treatment could be deferred,” said Neil J. Stone, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and author of the 2013 ASCVD risk calculator. “The guidelines pointed out that risk-enhancing factors may be associated with an increase in lifetime risk, not necessarily short term, and so could inform a more personalized risk discussion.”

The study findings validate the utility of CAC for guiding statin therapy, Dr. Stone said. “For those who have felt that a calcium score is not useful,” he said, “this is additional evidence to show that, in the context of making a decision in those at intermediate risk as proposed by the guidelines, a calcium score is indeed very useful.”

Dr. Stone added: “An important clinical point not mentioned by the authors is that, when the patient has a CAC score of 0 and risk factors, this may be exactly the time to be aggressive with lifestyle to prevent them from developing a positive CAC score and atherosclerosis, because once atherosclerosis is present, treatment may not restore the risk back to the original lower state.”

Dr. Patel, Dr. Al Rifai, and Dr. Stone have no relevant relationships to disclose. A number of study coauthors disclosed multiple financial relationships.

In patients with intermediate risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease along with risk-enhancing factors, coronary artery calcium scoring may help more precisely calculate their need for statin therapy.

Furthermore, when the need for statin treatment isn’t so clear and patients need additional risk assessment, the scoring can provide further information to personalize clinical decision making, according to a cross-sectional study of 1,688 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) published in JAMA Cardiology.

And regardless of coronary artery calcium (CAC), a low ankle brachial index (ABI) score is a marker for statin therapy, the study found.

The study looked at CAC scoring in the context of ABI and other risk-enhancing factors identified in the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology cholesterol management guidelines: a family history of premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), lipid and inflammatory biomarkers, chronic kidney disease, chronic inflammatory conditions, premature menopause or preeclampsia, and South Asian ancestry.

Any number of these factors can indicate the need for statins in people with borderline or intermediate risk. The guidelines also call for selective use of CAC to aid the decision-making process for statin therapy when the risk for developing atherosclerosis isn’t so clear.

“The novel risk-enhancing factors are not perfect,” said lead author Jaideep Patel, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins Heart Center at Greater Baltimore Medical Center. He noted that the 2018 dyslipidemia guidelines suggested the risk for cardiovascular events rises when new risk-enhancing factors emerge, and that it was difficult to predict the extent to which each enhancer could change the 10-year risk. 
 

Utility of CAC

“In this setting, the most significant finding that supports the utility of CAC scoring is when CAC is absent – a CAC of 0 – even in the setting of any of these enhancers, whether it be single or multiple, the 10-year risk remains extremely low – at the very least below the accepted threshold to initiate statin therapy,” Dr. Patel said.

That threshold is below the 7.5% 10-year ASCVD incidence rate. Over the 12-year mean study follow-up, the ASCVD incidence rate among patients with a CAC score of 0 for all risk-enhancing factors was 7.5 events per 1,000 person years, with one exception: ABI had an incidence rate of 10.4 events per 1,000 person years. “A low ABI score should trigger statin initiation irrespective of CAC score,” Dr. Patel said.

The study found a CAC score of 0 in 45.7% of those with one or two risk-enhancing factors versus 40.3% in those with three or more. “Across all the risk enhancers (except low ABI), the prevalence of CAC of 0 was greater than 50% in women; that is, enhancers overestimate risk,” Dr. Patel said. “The prevalence of CAC of 0 was approximately 40% across all risk enhancers; that is, enhancers overestimate risk.”

Dr. Patel said previous studies have suggested the risk of a major cardiovascular event was almost identical for statin and nonstatin users with a CAC score of 0. “If there is uncertainty about statin use after the physician-patient risk discussion,” he said, “CAC scoring may be helpful to guide the use of statin therapy.”

Senior author Mahmoud Al Rifai, MD, MPH, added: “For example, if CAC was absent, a statin could be deprescribed if there’s disutility on the part of the patient, with ongoing lifestyle and risk factor modification efforts.” Dr. Al Rifai is a cardiology fellow at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Dr. Patel said: “Alternatively, if CAC was present, then it would be prudent to continue statin therapy.”

While South Asian ethnicity is a risk enhancing factor, the investigators acknowledged that MESA didn’t recruit this population group.
 

Study confirms guidelines

The study “supports the contention of the [AHA/ACC] guidelines that, in people who are in this intermediate risk range, there may be factors that either favor statin treatment or suggest that statin treatment could be deferred,” said Neil J. Stone, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and author of the 2013 ASCVD risk calculator. “The guidelines pointed out that risk-enhancing factors may be associated with an increase in lifetime risk, not necessarily short term, and so could inform a more personalized risk discussion.”

The study findings validate the utility of CAC for guiding statin therapy, Dr. Stone said. “For those who have felt that a calcium score is not useful,” he said, “this is additional evidence to show that, in the context of making a decision in those at intermediate risk as proposed by the guidelines, a calcium score is indeed very useful.”

Dr. Stone added: “An important clinical point not mentioned by the authors is that, when the patient has a CAC score of 0 and risk factors, this may be exactly the time to be aggressive with lifestyle to prevent them from developing a positive CAC score and atherosclerosis, because once atherosclerosis is present, treatment may not restore the risk back to the original lower state.”

Dr. Patel, Dr. Al Rifai, and Dr. Stone have no relevant relationships to disclose. A number of study coauthors disclosed multiple financial relationships.

Acute illnesses requiring hospitalization serve as a sentinel event, with many older adults requiring assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) upon discharge.^1-3 Older adults who are frail experience even higher rates of hospital-associated disability, and rates of recovery to baseline functional status have varied.^4,5 Loss of independence in ADLs has been associated with nursing home (NH) utilization, caregiver burden, and mortality.⁶

To date, studies have characterized functional trajectories before and after hospitalization in older persons for broad medical conditions, noting persistence of disability and incomplete recovery to baseline functional status.⁷ Prior evaluations have also noted the long-term disabling impact of critical conditions such as acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and sepsis,^8,9 but a knowledge gap exists regarding the subsequent functional disability, recovery, and incident NH admission among older persons who are hospitalized for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs). Often considered potentially preventable with optimal ambulatory care,^10,11 ACSCs represent acute, chronic, and vaccine-preventable conditions, including urinary tract infection, congestive heart failure, diabetes mellitus, and pneumonia. Investigating the aforementioned patient-centered measures post hospitalization could provide valuable supporting evidence for the continued recognition of ACSC-related hospitalizations in national quality payment programs set forth by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).¹² Demonstrating adverse outcomes after ACSC-related hospitalizations may help support interventions that target potentially preventable ACSC-related hospitalizations, such as home-based care or telehealth, with the goal of improving functional outcomes and reducing NH admission in older persons.

To address these gaps, we evaluated ACSC-related hospitalizations among participants of the Precipitating Events Project (PEP), a 19-year longitudinal study of community-living persons who were initially nondisabled in their basic functional activities. In the 6 months following an ACSC-related hospitalization, our objectives were to describe: (1) the 6-month course of postdischarge functional disability, (2) the cumulative monthly probability of functional recovery, and (3) the cumulative monthly probability of incident NH admission.

Study Population

Participants were drawn from the PEP study, an ongoing, prospective, longitudinal study of 754 community-dwelling persons aged 70 years or older.¹³ Potential participants were members of a large health plan in greater New Haven, Connecticut, and were enrolled from March 1998 through October 1999. As previously described,¹⁴ persons were oversampled if they were physically frail, as denoted by a timed score >10 seconds on the rapid gait test. Exclusion criteria included significant cognitive impairment with no available proxy, life expectancy less than 12 months, plans to leave the area, and inability to speak English. Participants were initially required to be nondisabled in four basic activities of daily living (bathing, dressing, walking across a room, and transferring from a chair). Eligibility was determined during a screening telephone interview and was confirmed during an in-home assessment. Of the eligible members, 75.2% agreed to participate in the project, and persons who declined to participate did not significantly differ in age or sex from those who were enrolled. The Yale Human Investigation Committee approved the study protocol, and all participants provided verbal informed consent.

Data Collection

From 1998 to 2017, comprehensive home-based assessments were completed by trained research nurses at baseline and at 18-month intervals over 234 months (except at 126 months), and telephone interviews were completed monthly through June 2018, to obtain information on disability over time. For participants who had significant cognitive impairment or who were unavailable, we interviewed a proxy informant using a rigorous protocol with demonstrated reliability and validity.¹⁴ All incident NH admissions, including both short- and long-term stays, were identified using the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility claims file and Long Term Care Minimum Data Set. Deaths were ascertained by review of obituaries and/or from a proxy informant, with a completion rate of 100%. A total of 688 participants (91.2%) had died after a median follow-up of 108 months, while 43 participants (5.7%) dropped out of the study after a median follow-up of 27 months. Among all participants, data were otherwise available for 99.2% of 85,531 monthly telephone interviews.

Assembly of Analytic Sample

PEP participants were considered for inclusion in the analytic sample if they had a hospitalization with an ACSC as the primary diagnosis on linked Medicare claims data. The complete list of ACSCs was defined using specifications from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,¹⁵ and was assembled using the International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) classification prior to October 1, 2015, and ICD Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) classification after October 1, 2015 (Appendix Table 1). Examples of ACSCs include congestive heart failure, dehydration, urinary tract infection, and angina without procedure. As performed previously,^16,17 two ACSCs (low birthweight; asthma in younger adults 18-39 years) were not included in this analysis because they were not based on full adult populations.

ACSC-related hospitalizations were included through December 2017. Participants could contribute more than one ACSC-related hospitalization over the course of the study based on the following criteria: (1) participant did not have a prior non-ACSC-related hospitalization within an 18-month interval; (2) participant did not have a prior ACSC-related hospitalization or treat-and-release emergency department (ED) visit within an 18-month interval (to ensure independence of observations if the participant was still recovering from the prior event and because some of the characteristics within Table 1 are susceptible to change in the setting of an intervening event and, hence, would not accurately reflect the status of the participant prior to ACSC-related hospitalization); (3) participant was not admitted from a NH; (4) participant did not have an in-hospital intensive care unit (ICU) stay (because persons with critical illness are a distinct population with frequent disability and prolonged recovery, as previously described¹⁸), in-hospital death, or death before first follow-up interview (because our aim was to evaluate disability and recovery after the hospitalization⁷).

Assembly of the primary analytic sample is depicted in the Appendix Figure. Of the 814 patients who were identified with ACSC-related hospitalizations, 107 had a prior non-ACSC-related hospitalization and 275 had a prior ACSC-related hospitalization or a treat-and-release ED visit within an 18-month interval. Of the remaining 432 ACSC-related hospitalizations, 181 were excluded: 114 patients were admitted from a NH, 38 had an in-hospital ICU stay, 3 died in the hospital, 11 died before their first follow-up interview, and 15 had withdrawn from the study. The primary analytic sample included the remaining 251 ACSC-related hospitalizations, contributed by 196 participants. Specifically, nine participants contributed three ACSC-related hospitalizations each, 37 participants contributed two hospitalizations each, and the remaining 150 participants contributed one hospitalization each. During the 6-month follow-up period, 40 participants contributing ACSC-related hospitalizations died after a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 4 (2-5) months, and 1 person refused continued participation.

Comprehensive Assessments

During the comprehensive in-home assessments, data were obtained on demographic characteristics. Age was measured in years at the time of the ACSC-related hospitalization. In addition, we describe factors from the comprehensive assessment immediately prior to the ACSC-related hospitalization, grouped into two additional domains related to disability¹⁹: health-related and cognitive-psychosocial. The health-related factors included nine self-reported, physician-diagnosed chronic conditions and frailty. The cognitive-psychosocial factors included social support, cognitive impairment, and depressive symptoms.

Assessment of Disability

Complete details about the assessment of disability have been previously described.^13,14,19,20 Briefly, disability was assessed during the monthly telephone interviews, and included four basic activities (bathing, dressing, walking across a room, and transferring from a chair), five instrumental activities (shopping, housework, meal preparation, taking medications, and managing finances), and three mobility activities (walking a quarter mile, climbing a flight of stairs, and lifting or carrying 10 lb). Participants were asked, “At the present time, do you need help from another person to [complete the task]?” Disability was operationalized as the need for personal assistance or an inability to perform the task. Participants were also asked about a fourth mobility activity, “Have you driven a car during the past month?” Those who responded no were classified as being disabled in driving.¹⁹

The number of disabilities overall and for each functional domain (basic, instrumental, and mobility) was summed. Possible disability scores ranged from 0 to 13, with a score of 0 indicating complete independence in all of the items, and a score of 13 indicating complete dependence. Worse postdischarge disability was defined as a total disability score (0-13) at the first telephone interview after an ACSC-related hospitalization that was greater than the total disability score from the telephone interview immediately preceding hospitalization.

Outcome Measures

The primary outcome was the number of disabilities in all 13 basic, instrumental, and mobility activities in each of the 6 months following discharge from an ACSC-related hospitalization. To determine whether our findings were consistent across the three functional domains, we also evaluated the number of disabilities in the four basic, five instrumental, and four mobility activities separately. As secondary outcomes, we evaluated: (1) the cumulative probability of recovery within the 6-month follow-up time frame after an ACSC-related hospitalization, with “recovery” defined as return to the participant’s pre-ACSC-related hospitalization total disability score, and (2) the cumulative probability of incident NH admission within the 6 months after an ACSC-related hospitalization. Aligned with CMS and prior literature,^21,22 we defined a short-term NH stay as ≤100 days and a long-term NH stay as >100 days.

Statistical Analysis

Pre-ACSC-related hospitalization characteristics were summarized by means (SDs) and frequencies with proportions. We determined the mean number of disabilities in each of the 6 months following hospital discharge, with the prehospitalization value included as a reference point. We also determined the mean (SD) number of disabilities for the three subscales of disability (basic activities of daily living [BADLs], instrumental activities of daily living [IADLs], and mobility activities). We calculated the cumulative probability of recovery within 6 months of hospital discharge. Finally, we determined the cumulative probability of incident NH admission during the 6 months after hospital discharge.

To test the robustness of our main results, we conducted a sensitivity analysis assessing disability scores of the 150 participants that contributed only one ACSC-related hospitalization. All analyses were performed using Stata, version 16.0, statistical software (StataCorp).

Table 1 shows the characteristics of the 251 ACSC-related hospitalizations immediately prior to hospitalization. Participants’ mean (SD) age was 85.1 (6.0) years, and the mean total disability score was 5.4. The majority were female, non-Hispanic White, frail, and lived alone. As shown in Appendix Table 2, the three most common reasons for ACSC-related hospitalizations were congestive heart failure (n = 69), bacterial pneumonia (n = 53), and dehydration (n = 44).

The Figure shows the disability scores during the 6-month follow-up period for total, basic, instrumental, and mobility activities, in panels A, B, C, and D, respectively. The exact values are provided in Appendix Table 3. After hospitalization, disability scores for total, basic, instrumental, and mobility activities peaked at month 1 and tended to improve modestly over the next 5 months, but remained greater, on average, than pre-hospitalization scores. Of the 40 participants who died within the 6-month follow-up period, 36 (90%) had worse disability scores in their last month of life than in the month prior to their ACSC-related hospitalization.

Table 2 shows the cumulative probability of functional recovery after ACSC-related hospitalizations. Recovery was incomplete, with only 70% (95% CI, 64%-76%) of hospitalizations achieving a return to the pre-hospitalization total disability score within 6 months of hospitalization.

Table 3 shows the cumulative probability of incident NH admission after an ACSC-related hospitalization. Of the 251 ACSC-related hospitalizations, incident NH admission was experienced by 38% (95% CI, 32%-44%) within 1 month and 50% (95% CI, 43%-56%) within 6 months of discharge. Short-term NH stays accounted for 90 (75.6%) of the 119 incident NH admissions within the 6 months after ACSC-related hospitalizations. Sensitivity analyses yielded comparable disability scores, shown in Appendix Table 4.

In this longitudinal study of community-living older persons, we evaluated functional disability, recovery, and incident NH admission within 6 months of hospitalization for an ACSC. Our study has three major findings. First, disability scores for total, basic, instrumental, and mobility activities at months 1 to 6 of follow-up were greater on average than pre-hospitalization scores. Second, functional recovery was not achieved by 3 of 10 participants after an ACSC-related hospitalization. Third, half of them experienced an incident NH admission within 6 months of discharge from an ACSC-related hospitalization, although about three-quarters of these were short-term stays. Our findings provide evidence that older persons experience clinically meaningful adverse patient-reported outcomes after ACSC-related hospitalizations.

Prior research involving ACSCs has focused largely on rates of hospitalization as a measure of access to primary care and the associated factors predictive of ACSC-related hospitalizations,^23-26 and has not addressed subsequent patient-reported outcomes. The findings in this analysis highlight that older persons experience worsening disability immediately after an ACSC-related hospitalization, which persists for prolonged periods and often results in incomplete recovery. Prior research has assessed pre-hospitalization functional status through retrospective recall approaches,² included only older adults discharged with incident disability,³ and examined functional status after all-cause medical illness hospitalizations.⁵ Our prospective analysis extends the literature by reliably capturing pre-hospital disability scores and uniquely assessing the cohort of older persons hospitalized with ACSCs.

Our work is relevant to the continued evaluation of ACSC-related hospitalizations in national quality measurement and payment initiatives among Medicare beneficiaries. In prior evaluations of ACSC-related quality measures, stakeholders have criticized the measures for limited validity due to a lack of evidence linking each utilization outcome to other patient-centered outcomes.^10,27 Our work addresses this gap by demonstrating that ACSC-related hospitalizations are linked to persistent disability, incomplete functional recovery, and incident NH admissions. Given the large body of evidence demonstrating the priority older persons place on these patient-reported outcomes,^28,29 our work should reassure policymakers seeking to transform quality measurement programs into a more patient-oriented enterprise.

Our findings have several clinical practice, research, and policy implications. First, more-effective clinical strategies to minimize the level of care required for acute exacerbations of ACSC-related illnesses may include: (1) substituting home-based care³⁰ and telehealth interventions³¹ for traditional inpatient hospitalization, (2) making in-ED resources (ie, case management services, geriatric-focused advanced practice providers) more accessible for older persons with ACSC-related illnesses, thereby enhancing care transitions and follow-up to avoid potential current and subsequent hospitalizations, and (3) ensuring adequate ambulatory care access to all older persons, as prior work has shown variation in ACSC hospital admission rates dependent on population factors such as high-poverty neighborhoods,¹⁶ insurance status,^16,32 and race/ethnicity.³³

Clinical strategies have been narrow and not holistic for ACSCs; for example, many institutions have focused on pneumonia vaccinations to reduce hospitalizations, but our work supports the need to further evaluate the impact of preventing ACSC-related hospitalizations and their associated disabling consequences. For patients admitted to the hospital, clinical strategies, such as in-hospital or post-hospital mobility and activity programs, have been shown to be protective against hospital-associated disability.^34,35 Furthermore, hospital discharge planning could include preparing older persons for anticipated functional disabilities, associated recoveries, and NH admission after ACSC-related hospitalizations. Risk factors contributing to post-hospitalization functional disability and recovery have been identified,^19,20,36 but future work is needed to: (1) identify target populations (including those most likely to worsen) so that interventions can be offered earlier in the course of care to those who would benefit most, and (2) identify and learn from those who are resilient and have recovered, to better understand factors contributing to their success.

Our study has several strengths. First, the study is unique due to its longitudinal design, with monthly assessments of functional status. Since functional status was assessed prospectively before the ACSC-related hospitalization, we also have avoided any potential concern for recall bias that may be present if assessed after the hospitalization. Additionally, through the use of Medicare claims and the Minimum Data Set, the ascertainment of hospitalizations and NH admissions was likely complete for the studied population.

However, the study has limitations. First, functional measures were based on self-reports rather than objective measurements. Nevertheless, the self-report function is often used to guide coverage determinations in the Medicare program, as it has been shown to be associated with poor health outcomes.³⁷ Second, we are unable to comment on the rate of functional decline or NH admission when an older person was not hospitalized in relation to an ACSC. Future analyses may benefit from using a control group (eg, older adults without an ACSC hospitalization or older adults with a non-ACSC hospitalization). Third, we used strict exclusion criteria to identify a population of older adults without recent hospitalizations to determine the isolated impact of ACSC hospitalization on disability, incident NH admission, and functional recovery. Considering this potential selection bias, our findings are likely conservative estimates of the patient-centered outcomes evaluated. Fourth, participants were not asked about feeding and toileting. However, the incidence of disability in these ADLs is low among nondisabled, community-living older persons, and it is highly uncommon for disability to develop in these ADLs without concurrent disability in the ADLs within this analysis.^14,38

Finally, because our study participants were members of a single health plan in a small urban area and included nondisabled older persons living in the community, our findings may not be generalizable to geriatric patients in other settings. Nonetheless, the demographics of our cohort reflect those of older persons in New Haven County, Connecticut, which are similar to the demographics of the US population, with the exception of race and ethnicity. In addition, the generalizability of our results are strengthened by the study’s high participation rate and minimal attrition.

Within 6 months of ACSC-related hospitalizations, community-living older persons exhibited greater total disability scores than those immediately preceding hospitalization. In the same time frame, 3 of 10 older persons did not achieve functional recovery, and half experienced incident NH admission. These results provide evidence regarding the continued recognition of ACSC-related hospitalizations in federal quality measurement and payment programs and suggests the need for preventive and comprehensive interventions to meaningfully improve longitudinal outcomes.

We thank Denise Shepard, BSN, MBA, Andrea Benjamin, BSN, Barbara Foster, and Amy Shelton, MPH, for assistance with data collection; Geraldine Hawthorne, BS, for assistance with data entry and management; Peter Charpentier, MPH, for design and development of the study database and participant tracking system; and Joanne McGloin, MDiv, MBA, for leadership and advice as the Project Director. Each of these persons were paid employees of Yale School of Medicine during the conduct of this study.

Acute illnesses requiring hospitalization serve as a sentinel event, with many older adults requiring assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) upon discharge.^1-3 Older adults who are frail experience even higher rates of hospital-associated disability, and rates of recovery to baseline functional status have varied.^4,5 Loss of independence in ADLs has been associated with nursing home (NH) utilization, caregiver burden, and mortality.⁶

To date, studies have characterized functional trajectories before and after hospitalization in older persons for broad medical conditions, noting persistence of disability and incomplete recovery to baseline functional status.⁷ Prior evaluations have also noted the long-term disabling impact of critical conditions such as acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and sepsis,^8,9 but a knowledge gap exists regarding the subsequent functional disability, recovery, and incident NH admission among older persons who are hospitalized for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs). Often considered potentially preventable with optimal ambulatory care,^10,11 ACSCs represent acute, chronic, and vaccine-preventable conditions, including urinary tract infection, congestive heart failure, diabetes mellitus, and pneumonia. Investigating the aforementioned patient-centered measures post hospitalization could provide valuable supporting evidence for the continued recognition of ACSC-related hospitalizations in national quality payment programs set forth by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).¹² Demonstrating adverse outcomes after ACSC-related hospitalizations may help support interventions that target potentially preventable ACSC-related hospitalizations, such as home-based care or telehealth, with the goal of improving functional outcomes and reducing NH admission in older persons.

To address these gaps, we evaluated ACSC-related hospitalizations among participants of the Precipitating Events Project (PEP), a 19-year longitudinal study of community-living persons who were initially nondisabled in their basic functional activities. In the 6 months following an ACSC-related hospitalization, our objectives were to describe: (1) the 6-month course of postdischarge functional disability, (2) the cumulative monthly probability of functional recovery, and (3) the cumulative monthly probability of incident NH admission.

Study Population

Participants were drawn from the PEP study, an ongoing, prospective, longitudinal study of 754 community-dwelling persons aged 70 years or older.¹³ Potential participants were members of a large health plan in greater New Haven, Connecticut, and were enrolled from March 1998 through October 1999. As previously described,¹⁴ persons were oversampled if they were physically frail, as denoted by a timed score >10 seconds on the rapid gait test. Exclusion criteria included significant cognitive impairment with no available proxy, life expectancy less than 12 months, plans to leave the area, and inability to speak English. Participants were initially required to be nondisabled in four basic activities of daily living (bathing, dressing, walking across a room, and transferring from a chair). Eligibility was determined during a screening telephone interview and was confirmed during an in-home assessment. Of the eligible members, 75.2% agreed to participate in the project, and persons who declined to participate did not significantly differ in age or sex from those who were enrolled. The Yale Human Investigation Committee approved the study protocol, and all participants provided verbal informed consent.

Data Collection

From 1998 to 2017, comprehensive home-based assessments were completed by trained research nurses at baseline and at 18-month intervals over 234 months (except at 126 months), and telephone interviews were completed monthly through June 2018, to obtain information on disability over time. For participants who had significant cognitive impairment or who were unavailable, we interviewed a proxy informant using a rigorous protocol with demonstrated reliability and validity.¹⁴ All incident NH admissions, including both short- and long-term stays, were identified using the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility claims file and Long Term Care Minimum Data Set. Deaths were ascertained by review of obituaries and/or from a proxy informant, with a completion rate of 100%. A total of 688 participants (91.2%) had died after a median follow-up of 108 months, while 43 participants (5.7%) dropped out of the study after a median follow-up of 27 months. Among all participants, data were otherwise available for 99.2% of 85,531 monthly telephone interviews.

Assembly of Analytic Sample

PEP participants were considered for inclusion in the analytic sample if they had a hospitalization with an ACSC as the primary diagnosis on linked Medicare claims data. The complete list of ACSCs was defined using specifications from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,¹⁵ and was assembled using the International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) classification prior to October 1, 2015, and ICD Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) classification after October 1, 2015 (Appendix Table 1). Examples of ACSCs include congestive heart failure, dehydration, urinary tract infection, and angina without procedure. As performed previously,^16,17 two ACSCs (low birthweight; asthma in younger adults 18-39 years) were not included in this analysis because they were not based on full adult populations.

ACSC-related hospitalizations were included through December 2017. Participants could contribute more than one ACSC-related hospitalization over the course of the study based on the following criteria: (1) participant did not have a prior non-ACSC-related hospitalization within an 18-month interval; (2) participant did not have a prior ACSC-related hospitalization or treat-and-release emergency department (ED) visit within an 18-month interval (to ensure independence of observations if the participant was still recovering from the prior event and because some of the characteristics within Table 1 are susceptible to change in the setting of an intervening event and, hence, would not accurately reflect the status of the participant prior to ACSC-related hospitalization); (3) participant was not admitted from a NH; (4) participant did not have an in-hospital intensive care unit (ICU) stay (because persons with critical illness are a distinct population with frequent disability and prolonged recovery, as previously described¹⁸), in-hospital death, or death before first follow-up interview (because our aim was to evaluate disability and recovery after the hospitalization⁷).

Assembly of the primary analytic sample is depicted in the Appendix Figure. Of the 814 patients who were identified with ACSC-related hospitalizations, 107 had a prior non-ACSC-related hospitalization and 275 had a prior ACSC-related hospitalization or a treat-and-release ED visit within an 18-month interval. Of the remaining 432 ACSC-related hospitalizations, 181 were excluded: 114 patients were admitted from a NH, 38 had an in-hospital ICU stay, 3 died in the hospital, 11 died before their first follow-up interview, and 15 had withdrawn from the study. The primary analytic sample included the remaining 251 ACSC-related hospitalizations, contributed by 196 participants. Specifically, nine participants contributed three ACSC-related hospitalizations each, 37 participants contributed two hospitalizations each, and the remaining 150 participants contributed one hospitalization each. During the 6-month follow-up period, 40 participants contributing ACSC-related hospitalizations died after a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 4 (2-5) months, and 1 person refused continued participation.

Comprehensive Assessments

During the comprehensive in-home assessments, data were obtained on demographic characteristics. Age was measured in years at the time of the ACSC-related hospitalization. In addition, we describe factors from the comprehensive assessment immediately prior to the ACSC-related hospitalization, grouped into two additional domains related to disability¹⁹: health-related and cognitive-psychosocial. The health-related factors included nine self-reported, physician-diagnosed chronic conditions and frailty. The cognitive-psychosocial factors included social support, cognitive impairment, and depressive symptoms.

Assessment of Disability

Complete details about the assessment of disability have been previously described.^13,14,19,20 Briefly, disability was assessed during the monthly telephone interviews, and included four basic activities (bathing, dressing, walking across a room, and transferring from a chair), five instrumental activities (shopping, housework, meal preparation, taking medications, and managing finances), and three mobility activities (walking a quarter mile, climbing a flight of stairs, and lifting or carrying 10 lb). Participants were asked, “At the present time, do you need help from another person to [complete the task]?” Disability was operationalized as the need for personal assistance or an inability to perform the task. Participants were also asked about a fourth mobility activity, “Have you driven a car during the past month?” Those who responded no were classified as being disabled in driving.¹⁹

The number of disabilities overall and for each functional domain (basic, instrumental, and mobility) was summed. Possible disability scores ranged from 0 to 13, with a score of 0 indicating complete independence in all of the items, and a score of 13 indicating complete dependence. Worse postdischarge disability was defined as a total disability score (0-13) at the first telephone interview after an ACSC-related hospitalization that was greater than the total disability score from the telephone interview immediately preceding hospitalization.

Outcome Measures

The primary outcome was the number of disabilities in all 13 basic, instrumental, and mobility activities in each of the 6 months following discharge from an ACSC-related hospitalization. To determine whether our findings were consistent across the three functional domains, we also evaluated the number of disabilities in the four basic, five instrumental, and four mobility activities separately. As secondary outcomes, we evaluated: (1) the cumulative probability of recovery within the 6-month follow-up time frame after an ACSC-related hospitalization, with “recovery” defined as return to the participant’s pre-ACSC-related hospitalization total disability score, and (2) the cumulative probability of incident NH admission within the 6 months after an ACSC-related hospitalization. Aligned with CMS and prior literature,^21,22 we defined a short-term NH stay as ≤100 days and a long-term NH stay as >100 days.

Statistical Analysis

Pre-ACSC-related hospitalization characteristics were summarized by means (SDs) and frequencies with proportions. We determined the mean number of disabilities in each of the 6 months following hospital discharge, with the prehospitalization value included as a reference point. We also determined the mean (SD) number of disabilities for the three subscales of disability (basic activities of daily living [BADLs], instrumental activities of daily living [IADLs], and mobility activities). We calculated the cumulative probability of recovery within 6 months of hospital discharge. Finally, we determined the cumulative probability of incident NH admission during the 6 months after hospital discharge.

To test the robustness of our main results, we conducted a sensitivity analysis assessing disability scores of the 150 participants that contributed only one ACSC-related hospitalization. All analyses were performed using Stata, version 16.0, statistical software (StataCorp).

Table 1 shows the characteristics of the 251 ACSC-related hospitalizations immediately prior to hospitalization. Participants’ mean (SD) age was 85.1 (6.0) years, and the mean total disability score was 5.4. The majority were female, non-Hispanic White, frail, and lived alone. As shown in Appendix Table 2, the three most common reasons for ACSC-related hospitalizations were congestive heart failure (n = 69), bacterial pneumonia (n = 53), and dehydration (n = 44).

The Figure shows the disability scores during the 6-month follow-up period for total, basic, instrumental, and mobility activities, in panels A, B, C, and D, respectively. The exact values are provided in Appendix Table 3. After hospitalization, disability scores for total, basic, instrumental, and mobility activities peaked at month 1 and tended to improve modestly over the next 5 months, but remained greater, on average, than pre-hospitalization scores. Of the 40 participants who died within the 6-month follow-up period, 36 (90%) had worse disability scores in their last month of life than in the month prior to their ACSC-related hospitalization.

Table 2 shows the cumulative probability of functional recovery after ACSC-related hospitalizations. Recovery was incomplete, with only 70% (95% CI, 64%-76%) of hospitalizations achieving a return to the pre-hospitalization total disability score within 6 months of hospitalization.

Table 3 shows the cumulative probability of incident NH admission after an ACSC-related hospitalization. Of the 251 ACSC-related hospitalizations, incident NH admission was experienced by 38% (95% CI, 32%-44%) within 1 month and 50% (95% CI, 43%-56%) within 6 months of discharge. Short-term NH stays accounted for 90 (75.6%) of the 119 incident NH admissions within the 6 months after ACSC-related hospitalizations. Sensitivity analyses yielded comparable disability scores, shown in Appendix Table 4.

In this longitudinal study of community-living older persons, we evaluated functional disability, recovery, and incident NH admission within 6 months of hospitalization for an ACSC. Our study has three major findings. First, disability scores for total, basic, instrumental, and mobility activities at months 1 to 6 of follow-up were greater on average than pre-hospitalization scores. Second, functional recovery was not achieved by 3 of 10 participants after an ACSC-related hospitalization. Third, half of them experienced an incident NH admission within 6 months of discharge from an ACSC-related hospitalization, although about three-quarters of these were short-term stays. Our findings provide evidence that older persons experience clinically meaningful adverse patient-reported outcomes after ACSC-related hospitalizations.

Prior research involving ACSCs has focused largely on rates of hospitalization as a measure of access to primary care and the associated factors predictive of ACSC-related hospitalizations,^23-26 and has not addressed subsequent patient-reported outcomes. The findings in this analysis highlight that older persons experience worsening disability immediately after an ACSC-related hospitalization, which persists for prolonged periods and often results in incomplete recovery. Prior research has assessed pre-hospitalization functional status through retrospective recall approaches,² included only older adults discharged with incident disability,³ and examined functional status after all-cause medical illness hospitalizations.⁵ Our prospective analysis extends the literature by reliably capturing pre-hospital disability scores and uniquely assessing the cohort of older persons hospitalized with ACSCs.

Our work is relevant to the continued evaluation of ACSC-related hospitalizations in national quality measurement and payment initiatives among Medicare beneficiaries. In prior evaluations of ACSC-related quality measures, stakeholders have criticized the measures for limited validity due to a lack of evidence linking each utilization outcome to other patient-centered outcomes.^10,27 Our work addresses this gap by demonstrating that ACSC-related hospitalizations are linked to persistent disability, incomplete functional recovery, and incident NH admissions. Given the large body of evidence demonstrating the priority older persons place on these patient-reported outcomes,^28,29 our work should reassure policymakers seeking to transform quality measurement programs into a more patient-oriented enterprise.

Our findings have several clinical practice, research, and policy implications. First, more-effective clinical strategies to minimize the level of care required for acute exacerbations of ACSC-related illnesses may include: (1) substituting home-based care³⁰ and telehealth interventions³¹ for traditional inpatient hospitalization, (2) making in-ED resources (ie, case management services, geriatric-focused advanced practice providers) more accessible for older persons with ACSC-related illnesses, thereby enhancing care transitions and follow-up to avoid potential current and subsequent hospitalizations, and (3) ensuring adequate ambulatory care access to all older persons, as prior work has shown variation in ACSC hospital admission rates dependent on population factors such as high-poverty neighborhoods,¹⁶ insurance status,^16,32 and race/ethnicity.³³

Clinical strategies have been narrow and not holistic for ACSCs; for example, many institutions have focused on pneumonia vaccinations to reduce hospitalizations, but our work supports the need to further evaluate the impact of preventing ACSC-related hospitalizations and their associated disabling consequences. For patients admitted to the hospital, clinical strategies, such as in-hospital or post-hospital mobility and activity programs, have been shown to be protective against hospital-associated disability.^34,35 Furthermore, hospital discharge planning could include preparing older persons for anticipated functional disabilities, associated recoveries, and NH admission after ACSC-related hospitalizations. Risk factors contributing to post-hospitalization functional disability and recovery have been identified,^19,20,36 but future work is needed to: (1) identify target populations (including those most likely to worsen) so that interventions can be offered earlier in the course of care to those who would benefit most, and (2) identify and learn from those who are resilient and have recovered, to better understand factors contributing to their success.

Our study has several strengths. First, the study is unique due to its longitudinal design, with monthly assessments of functional status. Since functional status was assessed prospectively before the ACSC-related hospitalization, we also have avoided any potential concern for recall bias that may be present if assessed after the hospitalization. Additionally, through the use of Medicare claims and the Minimum Data Set, the ascertainment of hospitalizations and NH admissions was likely complete for the studied population.

However, the study has limitations. First, functional measures were based on self-reports rather than objective measurements. Nevertheless, the self-report function is often used to guide coverage determinations in the Medicare program, as it has been shown to be associated with poor health outcomes.³⁷ Second, we are unable to comment on the rate of functional decline or NH admission when an older person was not hospitalized in relation to an ACSC. Future analyses may benefit from using a control group (eg, older adults without an ACSC hospitalization or older adults with a non-ACSC hospitalization). Third, we used strict exclusion criteria to identify a population of older adults without recent hospitalizations to determine the isolated impact of ACSC hospitalization on disability, incident NH admission, and functional recovery. Considering this potential selection bias, our findings are likely conservative estimates of the patient-centered outcomes evaluated. Fourth, participants were not asked about feeding and toileting. However, the incidence of disability in these ADLs is low among nondisabled, community-living older persons, and it is highly uncommon for disability to develop in these ADLs without concurrent disability in the ADLs within this analysis.^14,38

Finally, because our study participants were members of a single health plan in a small urban area and included nondisabled older persons living in the community, our findings may not be generalizable to geriatric patients in other settings. Nonetheless, the demographics of our cohort reflect those of older persons in New Haven County, Connecticut, which are similar to the demographics of the US population, with the exception of race and ethnicity. In addition, the generalizability of our results are strengthened by the study’s high participation rate and minimal attrition.

Within 6 months of ACSC-related hospitalizations, community-living older persons exhibited greater total disability scores than those immediately preceding hospitalization. In the same time frame, 3 of 10 older persons did not achieve functional recovery, and half experienced incident NH admission. These results provide evidence regarding the continued recognition of ACSC-related hospitalizations in federal quality measurement and payment programs and suggests the need for preventive and comprehensive interventions to meaningfully improve longitudinal outcomes.

We thank Denise Shepard, BSN, MBA, Andrea Benjamin, BSN, Barbara Foster, and Amy Shelton, MPH, for assistance with data collection; Geraldine Hawthorne, BS, for assistance with data entry and management; Peter Charpentier, MPH, for design and development of the study database and participant tracking system; and Joanne McGloin, MDiv, MBA, for leadership and advice as the Project Director. Each of these persons were paid employees of Yale School of Medicine during the conduct of this study.

Acute illnesses requiring hospitalization serve as a sentinel event, with many older adults requiring assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) upon discharge.^1-3 Older adults who are frail experience even higher rates of hospital-associated disability, and rates of recovery to baseline functional status have varied.^4,5 Loss of independence in ADLs has been associated with nursing home (NH) utilization, caregiver burden, and mortality.⁶

To date, studies have characterized functional trajectories before and after hospitalization in older persons for broad medical conditions, noting persistence of disability and incomplete recovery to baseline functional status.⁷ Prior evaluations have also noted the long-term disabling impact of critical conditions such as acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and sepsis,^8,9 but a knowledge gap exists regarding the subsequent functional disability, recovery, and incident NH admission among older persons who are hospitalized for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs). Often considered potentially preventable with optimal ambulatory care,^10,11 ACSCs represent acute, chronic, and vaccine-preventable conditions, including urinary tract infection, congestive heart failure, diabetes mellitus, and pneumonia. Investigating the aforementioned patient-centered measures post hospitalization could provide valuable supporting evidence for the continued recognition of ACSC-related hospitalizations in national quality payment programs set forth by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).¹² Demonstrating adverse outcomes after ACSC-related hospitalizations may help support interventions that target potentially preventable ACSC-related hospitalizations, such as home-based care or telehealth, with the goal of improving functional outcomes and reducing NH admission in older persons.

To address these gaps, we evaluated ACSC-related hospitalizations among participants of the Precipitating Events Project (PEP), a 19-year longitudinal study of community-living persons who were initially nondisabled in their basic functional activities. In the 6 months following an ACSC-related hospitalization, our objectives were to describe: (1) the 6-month course of postdischarge functional disability, (2) the cumulative monthly probability of functional recovery, and (3) the cumulative monthly probability of incident NH admission.

Study Population

Participants were drawn from the PEP study, an ongoing, prospective, longitudinal study of 754 community-dwelling persons aged 70 years or older.¹³ Potential participants were members of a large health plan in greater New Haven, Connecticut, and were enrolled from March 1998 through October 1999. As previously described,¹⁴ persons were oversampled if they were physically frail, as denoted by a timed score >10 seconds on the rapid gait test. Exclusion criteria included significant cognitive impairment with no available proxy, life expectancy less than 12 months, plans to leave the area, and inability to speak English. Participants were initially required to be nondisabled in four basic activities of daily living (bathing, dressing, walking across a room, and transferring from a chair). Eligibility was determined during a screening telephone interview and was confirmed during an in-home assessment. Of the eligible members, 75.2% agreed to participate in the project, and persons who declined to participate did not significantly differ in age or sex from those who were enrolled. The Yale Human Investigation Committee approved the study protocol, and all participants provided verbal informed consent.

Data Collection

From 1998 to 2017, comprehensive home-based assessments were completed by trained research nurses at baseline and at 18-month intervals over 234 months (except at 126 months), and telephone interviews were completed monthly through June 2018, to obtain information on disability over time. For participants who had significant cognitive impairment or who were unavailable, we interviewed a proxy informant using a rigorous protocol with demonstrated reliability and validity.¹⁴ All incident NH admissions, including both short- and long-term stays, were identified using the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility claims file and Long Term Care Minimum Data Set. Deaths were ascertained by review of obituaries and/or from a proxy informant, with a completion rate of 100%. A total of 688 participants (91.2%) had died after a median follow-up of 108 months, while 43 participants (5.7%) dropped out of the study after a median follow-up of 27 months. Among all participants, data were otherwise available for 99.2% of 85,531 monthly telephone interviews.

Assembly of Analytic Sample

PEP participants were considered for inclusion in the analytic sample if they had a hospitalization with an ACSC as the primary diagnosis on linked Medicare claims data. The complete list of ACSCs was defined using specifications from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,¹⁵ and was assembled using the International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) classification prior to October 1, 2015, and ICD Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) classification after October 1, 2015 (Appendix Table 1). Examples of ACSCs include congestive heart failure, dehydration, urinary tract infection, and angina without procedure. As performed previously,^16,17 two ACSCs (low birthweight; asthma in younger adults 18-39 years) were not included in this analysis because they were not based on full adult populations.

ACSC-related hospitalizations were included through December 2017. Participants could contribute more than one ACSC-related hospitalization over the course of the study based on the following criteria: (1) participant did not have a prior non-ACSC-related hospitalization within an 18-month interval; (2) participant did not have a prior ACSC-related hospitalization or treat-and-release emergency department (ED) visit within an 18-month interval (to ensure independence of observations if the participant was still recovering from the prior event and because some of the characteristics within Table 1 are susceptible to change in the setting of an intervening event and, hence, would not accurately reflect the status of the participant prior to ACSC-related hospitalization); (3) participant was not admitted from a NH; (4) participant did not have an in-hospital intensive care unit (ICU) stay (because persons with critical illness are a distinct population with frequent disability and prolonged recovery, as previously described¹⁸), in-hospital death, or death before first follow-up interview (because our aim was to evaluate disability and recovery after the hospitalization⁷).

Assembly of the primary analytic sample is depicted in the Appendix Figure. Of the 814 patients who were identified with ACSC-related hospitalizations, 107 had a prior non-ACSC-related hospitalization and 275 had a prior ACSC-related hospitalization or a treat-and-release ED visit within an 18-month interval. Of the remaining 432 ACSC-related hospitalizations, 181 were excluded: 114 patients were admitted from a NH, 38 had an in-hospital ICU stay, 3 died in the hospital, 11 died before their first follow-up interview, and 15 had withdrawn from the study. The primary analytic sample included the remaining 251 ACSC-related hospitalizations, contributed by 196 participants. Specifically, nine participants contributed three ACSC-related hospitalizations each, 37 participants contributed two hospitalizations each, and the remaining 150 participants contributed one hospitalization each. During the 6-month follow-up period, 40 participants contributing ACSC-related hospitalizations died after a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 4 (2-5) months, and 1 person refused continued participation.

Comprehensive Assessments

During the comprehensive in-home assessments, data were obtained on demographic characteristics. Age was measured in years at the time of the ACSC-related hospitalization. In addition, we describe factors from the comprehensive assessment immediately prior to the ACSC-related hospitalization, grouped into two additional domains related to disability¹⁹: health-related and cognitive-psychosocial. The health-related factors included nine self-reported, physician-diagnosed chronic conditions and frailty. The cognitive-psychosocial factors included social support, cognitive impairment, and depressive symptoms.

Assessment of Disability

Complete details about the assessment of disability have been previously described.^13,14,19,20 Briefly, disability was assessed during the monthly telephone interviews, and included four basic activities (bathing, dressing, walking across a room, and transferring from a chair), five instrumental activities (shopping, housework, meal preparation, taking medications, and managing finances), and three mobility activities (walking a quarter mile, climbing a flight of stairs, and lifting or carrying 10 lb). Participants were asked, “At the present time, do you need help from another person to [complete the task]?” Disability was operationalized as the need for personal assistance or an inability to perform the task. Participants were also asked about a fourth mobility activity, “Have you driven a car during the past month?” Those who responded no were classified as being disabled in driving.¹⁹

The number of disabilities overall and for each functional domain (basic, instrumental, and mobility) was summed. Possible disability scores ranged from 0 to 13, with a score of 0 indicating complete independence in all of the items, and a score of 13 indicating complete dependence. Worse postdischarge disability was defined as a total disability score (0-13) at the first telephone interview after an ACSC-related hospitalization that was greater than the total disability score from the telephone interview immediately preceding hospitalization.

Outcome Measures

The primary outcome was the number of disabilities in all 13 basic, instrumental, and mobility activities in each of the 6 months following discharge from an ACSC-related hospitalization. To determine whether our findings were consistent across the three functional domains, we also evaluated the number of disabilities in the four basic, five instrumental, and four mobility activities separately. As secondary outcomes, we evaluated: (1) the cumulative probability of recovery within the 6-month follow-up time frame after an ACSC-related hospitalization, with “recovery” defined as return to the participant’s pre-ACSC-related hospitalization total disability score, and (2) the cumulative probability of incident NH admission within the 6 months after an ACSC-related hospitalization. Aligned with CMS and prior literature,^21,22 we defined a short-term NH stay as ≤100 days and a long-term NH stay as >100 days.

Statistical Analysis

Pre-ACSC-related hospitalization characteristics were summarized by means (SDs) and frequencies with proportions. We determined the mean number of disabilities in each of the 6 months following hospital discharge, with the prehospitalization value included as a reference point. We also determined the mean (SD) number of disabilities for the three subscales of disability (basic activities of daily living [BADLs], instrumental activities of daily living [IADLs], and mobility activities). We calculated the cumulative probability of recovery within 6 months of hospital discharge. Finally, we determined the cumulative probability of incident NH admission during the 6 months after hospital discharge.

To test the robustness of our main results, we conducted a sensitivity analysis assessing disability scores of the 150 participants that contributed only one ACSC-related hospitalization. All analyses were performed using Stata, version 16.0, statistical software (StataCorp).

Table 1 shows the characteristics of the 251 ACSC-related hospitalizations immediately prior to hospitalization. Participants’ mean (SD) age was 85.1 (6.0) years, and the mean total disability score was 5.4. The majority were female, non-Hispanic White, frail, and lived alone. As shown in Appendix Table 2, the three most common reasons for ACSC-related hospitalizations were congestive heart failure (n = 69), bacterial pneumonia (n = 53), and dehydration (n = 44).

The Figure shows the disability scores during the 6-month follow-up period for total, basic, instrumental, and mobility activities, in panels A, B, C, and D, respectively. The exact values are provided in Appendix Table 3. After hospitalization, disability scores for total, basic, instrumental, and mobility activities peaked at month 1 and tended to improve modestly over the next 5 months, but remained greater, on average, than pre-hospitalization scores. Of the 40 participants who died within the 6-month follow-up period, 36 (90%) had worse disability scores in their last month of life than in the month prior to their ACSC-related hospitalization.

Table 2 shows the cumulative probability of functional recovery after ACSC-related hospitalizations. Recovery was incomplete, with only 70% (95% CI, 64%-76%) of hospitalizations achieving a return to the pre-hospitalization total disability score within 6 months of hospitalization.

Table 3 shows the cumulative probability of incident NH admission after an ACSC-related hospitalization. Of the 251 ACSC-related hospitalizations, incident NH admission was experienced by 38% (95% CI, 32%-44%) within 1 month and 50% (95% CI, 43%-56%) within 6 months of discharge. Short-term NH stays accounted for 90 (75.6%) of the 119 incident NH admissions within the 6 months after ACSC-related hospitalizations. Sensitivity analyses yielded comparable disability scores, shown in Appendix Table 4.

In this longitudinal study of community-living older persons, we evaluated functional disability, recovery, and incident NH admission within 6 months of hospitalization for an ACSC. Our study has three major findings. First, disability scores for total, basic, instrumental, and mobility activities at months 1 to 6 of follow-up were greater on average than pre-hospitalization scores. Second, functional recovery was not achieved by 3 of 10 participants after an ACSC-related hospitalization. Third, half of them experienced an incident NH admission within 6 months of discharge from an ACSC-related hospitalization, although about three-quarters of these were short-term stays. Our findings provide evidence that older persons experience clinically meaningful adverse patient-reported outcomes after ACSC-related hospitalizations.

Prior research involving ACSCs has focused largely on rates of hospitalization as a measure of access to primary care and the associated factors predictive of ACSC-related hospitalizations,^23-26 and has not addressed subsequent patient-reported outcomes. The findings in this analysis highlight that older persons experience worsening disability immediately after an ACSC-related hospitalization, which persists for prolonged periods and often results in incomplete recovery. Prior research has assessed pre-hospitalization functional status through retrospective recall approaches,² included only older adults discharged with incident disability,³ and examined functional status after all-cause medical illness hospitalizations.⁵ Our prospective analysis extends the literature by reliably capturing pre-hospital disability scores and uniquely assessing the cohort of older persons hospitalized with ACSCs.

Our work is relevant to the continued evaluation of ACSC-related hospitalizations in national quality measurement and payment initiatives among Medicare beneficiaries. In prior evaluations of ACSC-related quality measures, stakeholders have criticized the measures for limited validity due to a lack of evidence linking each utilization outcome to other patient-centered outcomes.^10,27 Our work addresses this gap by demonstrating that ACSC-related hospitalizations are linked to persistent disability, incomplete functional recovery, and incident NH admissions. Given the large body of evidence demonstrating the priority older persons place on these patient-reported outcomes,^28,29 our work should reassure policymakers seeking to transform quality measurement programs into a more patient-oriented enterprise.

Our findings have several clinical practice, research, and policy implications. First, more-effective clinical strategies to minimize the level of care required for acute exacerbations of ACSC-related illnesses may include: (1) substituting home-based care³⁰ and telehealth interventions³¹ for traditional inpatient hospitalization, (2) making in-ED resources (ie, case management services, geriatric-focused advanced practice providers) more accessible for older persons with ACSC-related illnesses, thereby enhancing care transitions and follow-up to avoid potential current and subsequent hospitalizations, and (3) ensuring adequate ambulatory care access to all older persons, as prior work has shown variation in ACSC hospital admission rates dependent on population factors such as high-poverty neighborhoods,¹⁶ insurance status,^16,32 and race/ethnicity.³³

Clinical strategies have been narrow and not holistic for ACSCs; for example, many institutions have focused on pneumonia vaccinations to reduce hospitalizations, but our work supports the need to further evaluate the impact of preventing ACSC-related hospitalizations and their associated disabling consequences. For patients admitted to the hospital, clinical strategies, such as in-hospital or post-hospital mobility and activity programs, have been shown to be protective against hospital-associated disability.^34,35 Furthermore, hospital discharge planning could include preparing older persons for anticipated functional disabilities, associated recoveries, and NH admission after ACSC-related hospitalizations. Risk factors contributing to post-hospitalization functional disability and recovery have been identified,^19,20,36 but future work is needed to: (1) identify target populations (including those most likely to worsen) so that interventions can be offered earlier in the course of care to those who would benefit most, and (2) identify and learn from those who are resilient and have recovered, to better understand factors contributing to their success.

Our study has several strengths. First, the study is unique due to its longitudinal design, with monthly assessments of functional status. Since functional status was assessed prospectively before the ACSC-related hospitalization, we also have avoided any potential concern for recall bias that may be present if assessed after the hospitalization. Additionally, through the use of Medicare claims and the Minimum Data Set, the ascertainment of hospitalizations and NH admissions was likely complete for the studied population.

However, the study has limitations. First, functional measures were based on self-reports rather than objective measurements. Nevertheless, the self-report function is often used to guide coverage determinations in the Medicare program, as it has been shown to be associated with poor health outcomes.³⁷ Second, we are unable to comment on the rate of functional decline or NH admission when an older person was not hospitalized in relation to an ACSC. Future analyses may benefit from using a control group (eg, older adults without an ACSC hospitalization or older adults with a non-ACSC hospitalization). Third, we used strict exclusion criteria to identify a population of older adults without recent hospitalizations to determine the isolated impact of ACSC hospitalization on disability, incident NH admission, and functional recovery. Considering this potential selection bias, our findings are likely conservative estimates of the patient-centered outcomes evaluated. Fourth, participants were not asked about feeding and toileting. However, the incidence of disability in these ADLs is low among nondisabled, community-living older persons, and it is highly uncommon for disability to develop in these ADLs without concurrent disability in the ADLs within this analysis.^14,38

Finally, because our study participants were members of a single health plan in a small urban area and included nondisabled older persons living in the community, our findings may not be generalizable to geriatric patients in other settings. Nonetheless, the demographics of our cohort reflect those of older persons in New Haven County, Connecticut, which are similar to the demographics of the US population, with the exception of race and ethnicity. In addition, the generalizability of our results are strengthened by the study’s high participation rate and minimal attrition.

Within 6 months of ACSC-related hospitalizations, community-living older persons exhibited greater total disability scores than those immediately preceding hospitalization. In the same time frame, 3 of 10 older persons did not achieve functional recovery, and half experienced incident NH admission. These results provide evidence regarding the continued recognition of ACSC-related hospitalizations in federal quality measurement and payment programs and suggests the need for preventive and comprehensive interventions to meaningfully improve longitudinal outcomes.

We thank Denise Shepard, BSN, MBA, Andrea Benjamin, BSN, Barbara Foster, and Amy Shelton, MPH, for assistance with data collection; Geraldine Hawthorne, BS, for assistance with data entry and management; Peter Charpentier, MPH, for design and development of the study database and participant tracking system; and Joanne McGloin, MDiv, MBA, for leadership and advice as the Project Director. Each of these persons were paid employees of Yale School of Medicine during the conduct of this study.