Geriatrics

A more definitive picture of how some hormones and moisturizers can offer relief to women experiencing vaginal dryness or painful intercourse during menopause was published in a recent systematic review in Annals of Internal Medicine. However, researchers noted scant long-term data on the safety of these products.

Vaginal dryness and challenges with intercourse and urination are among the symptoms of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). Hormones such as vaginal estrogen, vaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), or oral ospemifene are common treatments, along with moisturizers.

“The main finding is that commonly used therapies are likely to be effective for the common symptoms people have for GSM,” particularly vaginal dryness and painful intercourse, said Elisheva Danan, MD, MPH, a primary care physician and health services researcher at the Minneapolis VA Health Care System and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, who was the lead study author.

Many women might recognize hot flashes as connected to menopause, Dr. Danan said, as these tend to occur with the cessation of the menstrual cycle. However, genitourinary effects may not manifest until a few years later and worsen over time, when the connection to menopause is less clear.

“Women might not bring it up or think there’s a treatment that can work,” Dr. Danan said.

The systematic review may provide clinicians with more evidence of specific treatments to recommend. However, most of the trials included in the analysis studied treatment periods of 12 weeks or less, so the safety of long-term use is unclear.

“One question that hasn’t been answered yet in clinical trials is whether there could be a risk of uterine cancer with extended use of any of these treatments,” Dr. Danan said, because vaginal estrogen or ospemifene could stimulate growth of the uterine lining.

The studies Dr. Danan and colleagues found showed no increased risk for uterine cancer, but Dr, Danan noted that the maximum follow-up was 1 year, and study participants had a low risk for cancer to begin with. She advised that clinicians closely monitor women with risk factors if they use hormones to treat GSM indefinitely.
 

Forty-Six Randomized Controlled Trials, Many Open Questions

Dr. Danan and her colleagues conducted a systematic review of 46 randomized controlled trials, meant to inform an upcoming clinical practice guideline from the American Urological Association on treatment of GSM. Dr. Danan’s work was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Studies evaluated vaginal estrogen (22), other hormones such as vaginal oxytocin or vaginal testosterone (16), vaginal moisturizers (4), and multiple interventions (4).

Included trials lasted at least 8 weeks and included at least 20 postmenopausal women; most treatments lasted 12 weeks or less. Studies used varying definitions of GSM, and no head-to-head trials of different treatments were found.

Researchers used the Core Outcomes in Menopause (COMMA) framework, developed in 2021 to standardize outcomes research in menopause care and to understand treatment effectiveness. They applied this framework retroactively, as almost all the studies in the review were written before the COMMA framework existed.

Hormonal treatments were associated with reduced pain during intercourse and decreased vaginal dryness; moisturizers were linked to reduced dryness.

Vaginal estrogen did not reduce pain during intercourse as consistently as DHEA or oral ospemifene, per the review. Dr. Danan and her coauthors said this could be because the DHEA and ospemifene trials were larger and more uniformly conducted than those for vaginal estrogen. Even so, vaginal estrogen outperformed placebo at reducing painful intercourse.

But given the short timeframe of most studies and the differing definitions of GSM symptoms, Dr. Danan cautioned that all their conclusions have low certainty.

Few studies examined whether these treatments reduced vaginal itchiness or difficulties with urination. And the authors found no evidence for the benefit of oral DHEA, raloxifene, bazedoxifene, vaginal oxytocin, or vaginal testosterone for GSM treatment.

In an accompanying report, the researchers found no evidence for the benefits of treatments such as vaginal testosterone or vaginal laser therapy.

Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, medical director for the North American Menopause Society and director of the Mayo Clinic Center for Women’s Health, Rochester, Minnesota, wrote an accompanying editorial noting that the patients represented in the GSM treatment clinical trials were not diverse and that the exclusion criteria generally meant that women with cardiovascular challenges or cancer were not included.

“That’s one of the biggest questions — what is the safety in women with cardiovascular risk factors or history of a blood clot or history of a cancer? The data is just completely absent there,” Dr. Faubion said.
 

The Connection Between GSM and Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs)

“Genitourinary syndrome of menopause is not just a little bit of vaginal dryness that can be cured with moisturizers and lubricants, but the syndrome can lead to recurrent urinary tract infections, which are extremely harmful and dangerous to our patients and cost the healthcare system a lot of money,” said Rachel Rubin, MD, a urologist and sexual medicine specialist in Bethesda, Maryland.

Lubricants and moisturizers can all help with the symptoms of GSM, at least in the short term, Dr. Rubin noted. But only hormones can get to the root of the problem and reduce the risk for a recurrent UTI (rUTI), Dr. Rubin added, noting that the American Urological Association recommends the use of vaginal estrogen to reduce the risk for rUTIs and is developing the clinical practice guidelines for GSM.

Dr. Danan’s review did not address the association between UTIs and GSM, but Dr. Rubin said she sees the link in clinical practice.

“Recurrent urinary tract infections occur because of GSM, because of the lack of hormones to the tissue,” sometimes when a woman is in her 60s or 70s and thinks menopause is long over, Dr. Rubin said.

The reality is that women may need to take hormones for decades to reduce the risk for UTIs, another reason longer-term safety data are needed, Dr. Rubin said.

Dr. Danan, Dr. Faubion, and Dr. Rubin reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A more definitive picture of how some hormones and moisturizers can offer relief to women experiencing vaginal dryness or painful intercourse during menopause was published in a recent systematic review in Annals of Internal Medicine. However, researchers noted scant long-term data on the safety of these products.

Vaginal dryness and challenges with intercourse and urination are among the symptoms of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). Hormones such as vaginal estrogen, vaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), or oral ospemifene are common treatments, along with moisturizers.

“The main finding is that commonly used therapies are likely to be effective for the common symptoms people have for GSM,” particularly vaginal dryness and painful intercourse, said Elisheva Danan, MD, MPH, a primary care physician and health services researcher at the Minneapolis VA Health Care System and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, who was the lead study author.

Many women might recognize hot flashes as connected to menopause, Dr. Danan said, as these tend to occur with the cessation of the menstrual cycle. However, genitourinary effects may not manifest until a few years later and worsen over time, when the connection to menopause is less clear.

“Women might not bring it up or think there’s a treatment that can work,” Dr. Danan said.

The systematic review may provide clinicians with more evidence of specific treatments to recommend. However, most of the trials included in the analysis studied treatment periods of 12 weeks or less, so the safety of long-term use is unclear.

“One question that hasn’t been answered yet in clinical trials is whether there could be a risk of uterine cancer with extended use of any of these treatments,” Dr. Danan said, because vaginal estrogen or ospemifene could stimulate growth of the uterine lining.

The studies Dr. Danan and colleagues found showed no increased risk for uterine cancer, but Dr, Danan noted that the maximum follow-up was 1 year, and study participants had a low risk for cancer to begin with. She advised that clinicians closely monitor women with risk factors if they use hormones to treat GSM indefinitely.
 

Forty-Six Randomized Controlled Trials, Many Open Questions

Dr. Danan and her colleagues conducted a systematic review of 46 randomized controlled trials, meant to inform an upcoming clinical practice guideline from the American Urological Association on treatment of GSM. Dr. Danan’s work was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Studies evaluated vaginal estrogen (22), other hormones such as vaginal oxytocin or vaginal testosterone (16), vaginal moisturizers (4), and multiple interventions (4).

Included trials lasted at least 8 weeks and included at least 20 postmenopausal women; most treatments lasted 12 weeks or less. Studies used varying definitions of GSM, and no head-to-head trials of different treatments were found.

Researchers used the Core Outcomes in Menopause (COMMA) framework, developed in 2021 to standardize outcomes research in menopause care and to understand treatment effectiveness. They applied this framework retroactively, as almost all the studies in the review were written before the COMMA framework existed.

Hormonal treatments were associated with reduced pain during intercourse and decreased vaginal dryness; moisturizers were linked to reduced dryness.

Vaginal estrogen did not reduce pain during intercourse as consistently as DHEA or oral ospemifene, per the review. Dr. Danan and her coauthors said this could be because the DHEA and ospemifene trials were larger and more uniformly conducted than those for vaginal estrogen. Even so, vaginal estrogen outperformed placebo at reducing painful intercourse.

But given the short timeframe of most studies and the differing definitions of GSM symptoms, Dr. Danan cautioned that all their conclusions have low certainty.

Few studies examined whether these treatments reduced vaginal itchiness or difficulties with urination. And the authors found no evidence for the benefit of oral DHEA, raloxifene, bazedoxifene, vaginal oxytocin, or vaginal testosterone for GSM treatment.

In an accompanying report, the researchers found no evidence for the benefits of treatments such as vaginal testosterone or vaginal laser therapy.

Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, medical director for the North American Menopause Society and director of the Mayo Clinic Center for Women’s Health, Rochester, Minnesota, wrote an accompanying editorial noting that the patients represented in the GSM treatment clinical trials were not diverse and that the exclusion criteria generally meant that women with cardiovascular challenges or cancer were not included.

“That’s one of the biggest questions — what is the safety in women with cardiovascular risk factors or history of a blood clot or history of a cancer? The data is just completely absent there,” Dr. Faubion said.
 

The Connection Between GSM and Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs)

“Genitourinary syndrome of menopause is not just a little bit of vaginal dryness that can be cured with moisturizers and lubricants, but the syndrome can lead to recurrent urinary tract infections, which are extremely harmful and dangerous to our patients and cost the healthcare system a lot of money,” said Rachel Rubin, MD, a urologist and sexual medicine specialist in Bethesda, Maryland.

Lubricants and moisturizers can all help with the symptoms of GSM, at least in the short term, Dr. Rubin noted. But only hormones can get to the root of the problem and reduce the risk for a recurrent UTI (rUTI), Dr. Rubin added, noting that the American Urological Association recommends the use of vaginal estrogen to reduce the risk for rUTIs and is developing the clinical practice guidelines for GSM.

Dr. Danan’s review did not address the association between UTIs and GSM, but Dr. Rubin said she sees the link in clinical practice.

“Recurrent urinary tract infections occur because of GSM, because of the lack of hormones to the tissue,” sometimes when a woman is in her 60s or 70s and thinks menopause is long over, Dr. Rubin said.

The reality is that women may need to take hormones for decades to reduce the risk for UTIs, another reason longer-term safety data are needed, Dr. Rubin said.

Dr. Danan, Dr. Faubion, and Dr. Rubin reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A more definitive picture of how some hormones and moisturizers can offer relief to women experiencing vaginal dryness or painful intercourse during menopause was published in a recent systematic review in Annals of Internal Medicine. However, researchers noted scant long-term data on the safety of these products.

Vaginal dryness and challenges with intercourse and urination are among the symptoms of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). Hormones such as vaginal estrogen, vaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), or oral ospemifene are common treatments, along with moisturizers.

“The main finding is that commonly used therapies are likely to be effective for the common symptoms people have for GSM,” particularly vaginal dryness and painful intercourse, said Elisheva Danan, MD, MPH, a primary care physician and health services researcher at the Minneapolis VA Health Care System and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, who was the lead study author.

Many women might recognize hot flashes as connected to menopause, Dr. Danan said, as these tend to occur with the cessation of the menstrual cycle. However, genitourinary effects may not manifest until a few years later and worsen over time, when the connection to menopause is less clear.

“Women might not bring it up or think there’s a treatment that can work,” Dr. Danan said.

The systematic review may provide clinicians with more evidence of specific treatments to recommend. However, most of the trials included in the analysis studied treatment periods of 12 weeks or less, so the safety of long-term use is unclear.

“One question that hasn’t been answered yet in clinical trials is whether there could be a risk of uterine cancer with extended use of any of these treatments,” Dr. Danan said, because vaginal estrogen or ospemifene could stimulate growth of the uterine lining.

The studies Dr. Danan and colleagues found showed no increased risk for uterine cancer, but Dr, Danan noted that the maximum follow-up was 1 year, and study participants had a low risk for cancer to begin with. She advised that clinicians closely monitor women with risk factors if they use hormones to treat GSM indefinitely.
 

Forty-Six Randomized Controlled Trials, Many Open Questions

Dr. Danan and her colleagues conducted a systematic review of 46 randomized controlled trials, meant to inform an upcoming clinical practice guideline from the American Urological Association on treatment of GSM. Dr. Danan’s work was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Studies evaluated vaginal estrogen (22), other hormones such as vaginal oxytocin or vaginal testosterone (16), vaginal moisturizers (4), and multiple interventions (4).

Included trials lasted at least 8 weeks and included at least 20 postmenopausal women; most treatments lasted 12 weeks or less. Studies used varying definitions of GSM, and no head-to-head trials of different treatments were found.

Researchers used the Core Outcomes in Menopause (COMMA) framework, developed in 2021 to standardize outcomes research in menopause care and to understand treatment effectiveness. They applied this framework retroactively, as almost all the studies in the review were written before the COMMA framework existed.

Hormonal treatments were associated with reduced pain during intercourse and decreased vaginal dryness; moisturizers were linked to reduced dryness.

Vaginal estrogen did not reduce pain during intercourse as consistently as DHEA or oral ospemifene, per the review. Dr. Danan and her coauthors said this could be because the DHEA and ospemifene trials were larger and more uniformly conducted than those for vaginal estrogen. Even so, vaginal estrogen outperformed placebo at reducing painful intercourse.

But given the short timeframe of most studies and the differing definitions of GSM symptoms, Dr. Danan cautioned that all their conclusions have low certainty.

Few studies examined whether these treatments reduced vaginal itchiness or difficulties with urination. And the authors found no evidence for the benefit of oral DHEA, raloxifene, bazedoxifene, vaginal oxytocin, or vaginal testosterone for GSM treatment.

In an accompanying report, the researchers found no evidence for the benefits of treatments such as vaginal testosterone or vaginal laser therapy.

Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, medical director for the North American Menopause Society and director of the Mayo Clinic Center for Women’s Health, Rochester, Minnesota, wrote an accompanying editorial noting that the patients represented in the GSM treatment clinical trials were not diverse and that the exclusion criteria generally meant that women with cardiovascular challenges or cancer were not included.

“That’s one of the biggest questions — what is the safety in women with cardiovascular risk factors or history of a blood clot or history of a cancer? The data is just completely absent there,” Dr. Faubion said.
 

The Connection Between GSM and Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs)

“Genitourinary syndrome of menopause is not just a little bit of vaginal dryness that can be cured with moisturizers and lubricants, but the syndrome can lead to recurrent urinary tract infections, which are extremely harmful and dangerous to our patients and cost the healthcare system a lot of money,” said Rachel Rubin, MD, a urologist and sexual medicine specialist in Bethesda, Maryland.

Lubricants and moisturizers can all help with the symptoms of GSM, at least in the short term, Dr. Rubin noted. But only hormones can get to the root of the problem and reduce the risk for a recurrent UTI (rUTI), Dr. Rubin added, noting that the American Urological Association recommends the use of vaginal estrogen to reduce the risk for rUTIs and is developing the clinical practice guidelines for GSM.

Dr. Danan’s review did not address the association between UTIs and GSM, but Dr. Rubin said she sees the link in clinical practice.

“Recurrent urinary tract infections occur because of GSM, because of the lack of hormones to the tissue,” sometimes when a woman is in her 60s or 70s and thinks menopause is long over, Dr. Rubin said.

The reality is that women may need to take hormones for decades to reduce the risk for UTIs, another reason longer-term safety data are needed, Dr. Rubin said.

Dr. Danan, Dr. Faubion, and Dr. Rubin reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

The likelihood of receiving a dementia diagnosis in older adults varies significantly by region across the United States, a new study suggests. Rates ranged from 1.7% to 5.4%, with variations more pronounced in those aged 66-74 years and Black or Hispanic individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed newly diagnosed cases of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) using the 2018-2019 Medicare claims data for 4.8 million older adults across 306 hospital referral regions (HRRs).
• Participants were categorized by age and race or ethnicity to examine variations in diagnosis rates.
• Regional characteristics such as education level and prevalence of obesity, smoking, and diabetes were included to adjust for population risk factors.
• ADRD-specific diagnostic intensity was calculated as the ratio of the observed-to-expected new cases of ADRD in each HRR.

TAKEAWAY:

• Unadjusted analysis for that overall, 3% of older adults received a new ADRD diagnosis in 2019, with rates ranging from 1.7 to 5.4 per 100 individuals across HRRs and varied by age category.
• Regions in the South had the highest unadjusted ADRD case concentration, and the areas in the West/Northwest had the lowest.
• The ADRD-specific diagnosis intensity was 0.69-1.47 and varied the most in Black and Hispanic individuals and those aged 66-74 years.
• Regional differences in ADRD diagnosis rates are not fully explained by population risk factors, indicating potential health system-level differences.

IN PRACTICE:

“From place to place, the likelihood of getting your dementia diagnosed varies, and that may happen because of everything from practice norms for healthcare providers to individual patients’ knowledge and care-seeking behavior. These findings go beyond demographic and population-level differences in risk and indicate that there are health system-level differences that could be targeted and remediated,” lead author Julie P.W. Bynum, MD, MPH, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Dr. Bynum, professor of internal medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

The results may not be generalizable to other groups. The observational design of the study cannot completely negate residual confounding. The measures of population risks are coarser than those used in well-characterized epidemiologic studies, leading to potential imprecision. Finally, the study was not designed to determine whether regional differences in the likelihood of ADRD diagnosis resulted in differences in the population health outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The likelihood of receiving a dementia diagnosis in older adults varies significantly by region across the United States, a new study suggests. Rates ranged from 1.7% to 5.4%, with variations more pronounced in those aged 66-74 years and Black or Hispanic individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed newly diagnosed cases of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) using the 2018-2019 Medicare claims data for 4.8 million older adults across 306 hospital referral regions (HRRs).
• Participants were categorized by age and race or ethnicity to examine variations in diagnosis rates.
• Regional characteristics such as education level and prevalence of obesity, smoking, and diabetes were included to adjust for population risk factors.
• ADRD-specific diagnostic intensity was calculated as the ratio of the observed-to-expected new cases of ADRD in each HRR.

TAKEAWAY:

• Unadjusted analysis for that overall, 3% of older adults received a new ADRD diagnosis in 2019, with rates ranging from 1.7 to 5.4 per 100 individuals across HRRs and varied by age category.
• Regions in the South had the highest unadjusted ADRD case concentration, and the areas in the West/Northwest had the lowest.
• The ADRD-specific diagnosis intensity was 0.69-1.47 and varied the most in Black and Hispanic individuals and those aged 66-74 years.
• Regional differences in ADRD diagnosis rates are not fully explained by population risk factors, indicating potential health system-level differences.

IN PRACTICE:

“From place to place, the likelihood of getting your dementia diagnosed varies, and that may happen because of everything from practice norms for healthcare providers to individual patients’ knowledge and care-seeking behavior. These findings go beyond demographic and population-level differences in risk and indicate that there are health system-level differences that could be targeted and remediated,” lead author Julie P.W. Bynum, MD, MPH, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Dr. Bynum, professor of internal medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

The results may not be generalizable to other groups. The observational design of the study cannot completely negate residual confounding. The measures of population risks are coarser than those used in well-characterized epidemiologic studies, leading to potential imprecision. Finally, the study was not designed to determine whether regional differences in the likelihood of ADRD diagnosis resulted in differences in the population health outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The likelihood of receiving a dementia diagnosis in older adults varies significantly by region across the United States, a new study suggests. Rates ranged from 1.7% to 5.4%, with variations more pronounced in those aged 66-74 years and Black or Hispanic individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed newly diagnosed cases of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) using the 2018-2019 Medicare claims data for 4.8 million older adults across 306 hospital referral regions (HRRs).
• Participants were categorized by age and race or ethnicity to examine variations in diagnosis rates.
• Regional characteristics such as education level and prevalence of obesity, smoking, and diabetes were included to adjust for population risk factors.
• ADRD-specific diagnostic intensity was calculated as the ratio of the observed-to-expected new cases of ADRD in each HRR.

TAKEAWAY:

• Unadjusted analysis for that overall, 3% of older adults received a new ADRD diagnosis in 2019, with rates ranging from 1.7 to 5.4 per 100 individuals across HRRs and varied by age category.
• Regions in the South had the highest unadjusted ADRD case concentration, and the areas in the West/Northwest had the lowest.
• The ADRD-specific diagnosis intensity was 0.69-1.47 and varied the most in Black and Hispanic individuals and those aged 66-74 years.
• Regional differences in ADRD diagnosis rates are not fully explained by population risk factors, indicating potential health system-level differences.

IN PRACTICE:

“From place to place, the likelihood of getting your dementia diagnosed varies, and that may happen because of everything from practice norms for healthcare providers to individual patients’ knowledge and care-seeking behavior. These findings go beyond demographic and population-level differences in risk and indicate that there are health system-level differences that could be targeted and remediated,” lead author Julie P.W. Bynum, MD, MPH, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Dr. Bynum, professor of internal medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

The results may not be generalizable to other groups. The observational design of the study cannot completely negate residual confounding. The measures of population risks are coarser than those used in well-characterized epidemiologic studies, leading to potential imprecision. Finally, the study was not designed to determine whether regional differences in the likelihood of ADRD diagnosis resulted in differences in the population health outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Elinzanetant, the selective antagonist of neurokinin 1 and 3 receptors, led to rapid improvement in the frequency of vasomotor symptoms and significant improvements in the severity of symptoms, sleep disturbances, and menopause-related quality of life in two phase 3 studies. Researchers led by JoAnn V. Pinkerton, MD, from the University of Virginia Health in Charlottesville, reported their findings, which resulted from the randomized OASIS 1 and 2 studies, in JAMA.

“Women experience a variety of symptoms during their menopausal transition, including vasomotor symptoms ... and sleep disturbances, reported by up to 80% and 60%, respectively,” wrote the researchers. “Menopausal symptoms can negatively impact quality of life, reducing the capacity for daily activities and work productivity, and may be associated with long-term negative health outcomes such as cardiovascular events, depressive symptoms, cognitive decline, and other adverse brain outcomes.” The researchers also noted that some therapeutic options are available, including hormone replacement therapy and, in some countries, paroxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.

The Italian Ministry of Health’s menopause website points out that the transition generally occurs between ages 45 and 55 years. This huge hormonal change has consequences for women’s health. Ministry experts explain that diet and hormone replacement therapy (which should be taken under medical supervision) can prevent or counteract these consequences.

“Many women have contraindications, have tolerability issues leading to discontinuation, or prefer not to take these treatments,” wrote Dr. Pinkerton and colleagues, who evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of elinzanetant, a nonhormonal alternative treatment in development. The two double-blind, randomized, phase 3 studies (OASIS 1 and 2) included postmenopausal participants between ages 40 and 65 years with moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms who were treated with elinzanetant (OASIS 1, n = 199; OASIS 2, n = 200) or placebo (OASIS 1, n = 197; OASIS 2, n = 200).

After 4 weeks of treatment, 62.8% of participants in the OASIS 1 study and 62.2% in the OASIS 2 study reported at least a 50% reduction in the frequency of vasomotor symptoms (29.2% and 32.3% in the respective placebo groups). Improvements increased by week 12, with 71.4% and 74.7% of women in the elinzanetant group achieving this reduction (42.0% and 48.3% in the respective placebo groups). Women who took the medication also reported a reduction in the severity of vasomotor symptoms and improvements in sleep and menopause-related quality of life, with no significant tolerability and safety issues. “Elinzanetant has the potential to provide a well-tolerated and efficacious nonhormonal treatment option to address the unmet health needs of many menopausal individuals with moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms,” the authors concluded.

“With the discovery of nonhormonal treatment options targeting the neurons responsible for vasomotor symptoms, menopause care should advance on this solid scientific footing to benefit affected individuals,” wrote Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, and Chrisandra L. Shufelt, MD, who are affiliated with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and Jacksonville, Florida, in an accompanying editorial.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Elinzanetant, the selective antagonist of neurokinin 1 and 3 receptors, led to rapid improvement in the frequency of vasomotor symptoms and significant improvements in the severity of symptoms, sleep disturbances, and menopause-related quality of life in two phase 3 studies. Researchers led by JoAnn V. Pinkerton, MD, from the University of Virginia Health in Charlottesville, reported their findings, which resulted from the randomized OASIS 1 and 2 studies, in JAMA.

“Women experience a variety of symptoms during their menopausal transition, including vasomotor symptoms ... and sleep disturbances, reported by up to 80% and 60%, respectively,” wrote the researchers. “Menopausal symptoms can negatively impact quality of life, reducing the capacity for daily activities and work productivity, and may be associated with long-term negative health outcomes such as cardiovascular events, depressive symptoms, cognitive decline, and other adverse brain outcomes.” The researchers also noted that some therapeutic options are available, including hormone replacement therapy and, in some countries, paroxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.

The Italian Ministry of Health’s menopause website points out that the transition generally occurs between ages 45 and 55 years. This huge hormonal change has consequences for women’s health. Ministry experts explain that diet and hormone replacement therapy (which should be taken under medical supervision) can prevent or counteract these consequences.

“Many women have contraindications, have tolerability issues leading to discontinuation, or prefer not to take these treatments,” wrote Dr. Pinkerton and colleagues, who evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of elinzanetant, a nonhormonal alternative treatment in development. The two double-blind, randomized, phase 3 studies (OASIS 1 and 2) included postmenopausal participants between ages 40 and 65 years with moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms who were treated with elinzanetant (OASIS 1, n = 199; OASIS 2, n = 200) or placebo (OASIS 1, n = 197; OASIS 2, n = 200).

After 4 weeks of treatment, 62.8% of participants in the OASIS 1 study and 62.2% in the OASIS 2 study reported at least a 50% reduction in the frequency of vasomotor symptoms (29.2% and 32.3% in the respective placebo groups). Improvements increased by week 12, with 71.4% and 74.7% of women in the elinzanetant group achieving this reduction (42.0% and 48.3% in the respective placebo groups). Women who took the medication also reported a reduction in the severity of vasomotor symptoms and improvements in sleep and menopause-related quality of life, with no significant tolerability and safety issues. “Elinzanetant has the potential to provide a well-tolerated and efficacious nonhormonal treatment option to address the unmet health needs of many menopausal individuals with moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms,” the authors concluded.

“With the discovery of nonhormonal treatment options targeting the neurons responsible for vasomotor symptoms, menopause care should advance on this solid scientific footing to benefit affected individuals,” wrote Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, and Chrisandra L. Shufelt, MD, who are affiliated with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and Jacksonville, Florida, in an accompanying editorial.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Elinzanetant, the selective antagonist of neurokinin 1 and 3 receptors, led to rapid improvement in the frequency of vasomotor symptoms and significant improvements in the severity of symptoms, sleep disturbances, and menopause-related quality of life in two phase 3 studies. Researchers led by JoAnn V. Pinkerton, MD, from the University of Virginia Health in Charlottesville, reported their findings, which resulted from the randomized OASIS 1 and 2 studies, in JAMA.

“Women experience a variety of symptoms during their menopausal transition, including vasomotor symptoms ... and sleep disturbances, reported by up to 80% and 60%, respectively,” wrote the researchers. “Menopausal symptoms can negatively impact quality of life, reducing the capacity for daily activities and work productivity, and may be associated with long-term negative health outcomes such as cardiovascular events, depressive symptoms, cognitive decline, and other adverse brain outcomes.” The researchers also noted that some therapeutic options are available, including hormone replacement therapy and, in some countries, paroxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.

The Italian Ministry of Health’s menopause website points out that the transition generally occurs between ages 45 and 55 years. This huge hormonal change has consequences for women’s health. Ministry experts explain that diet and hormone replacement therapy (which should be taken under medical supervision) can prevent or counteract these consequences.

“Many women have contraindications, have tolerability issues leading to discontinuation, or prefer not to take these treatments,” wrote Dr. Pinkerton and colleagues, who evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of elinzanetant, a nonhormonal alternative treatment in development. The two double-blind, randomized, phase 3 studies (OASIS 1 and 2) included postmenopausal participants between ages 40 and 65 years with moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms who were treated with elinzanetant (OASIS 1, n = 199; OASIS 2, n = 200) or placebo (OASIS 1, n = 197; OASIS 2, n = 200).

After 4 weeks of treatment, 62.8% of participants in the OASIS 1 study and 62.2% in the OASIS 2 study reported at least a 50% reduction in the frequency of vasomotor symptoms (29.2% and 32.3% in the respective placebo groups). Improvements increased by week 12, with 71.4% and 74.7% of women in the elinzanetant group achieving this reduction (42.0% and 48.3% in the respective placebo groups). Women who took the medication also reported a reduction in the severity of vasomotor symptoms and improvements in sleep and menopause-related quality of life, with no significant tolerability and safety issues. “Elinzanetant has the potential to provide a well-tolerated and efficacious nonhormonal treatment option to address the unmet health needs of many menopausal individuals with moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms,” the authors concluded.

“With the discovery of nonhormonal treatment options targeting the neurons responsible for vasomotor symptoms, menopause care should advance on this solid scientific footing to benefit affected individuals,” wrote Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, and Chrisandra L. Shufelt, MD, who are affiliated with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and Jacksonville, Florida, in an accompanying editorial.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Hormone therapy (HT) can help women manage menopause symptoms into their 80s and the reasons are varied, according to a retrospective analysis being presented at the annual meeting of The Menopause Society.

“It’s important to know that this is a preselected group of women who had no contraindications to continuing their hormone therapy,” senior author Wendy Wolfman, MD, director of the Menopause Clinic and The Premature Ovarian Insufficiency Clinic at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said in an interview. “They had the initiation of hormone therapy closer to menopause and carried on their hormones. We followed them for a long time and basically saw no real concerns about taking the hormones and the patients did very well. It’s important to emphasize this was not the new initiation of hormone therapy in elderly women.”

She said that, in her large tertiary referral center, “I still see patients who are referred who are told that they have to stop their hormones after 5 years based on a false assumption. Everybody ages at different rates and everybody has different risk factors.”

About 70%-80% of women experience menopause symptoms that restrict quality of life and productivity, the authors noted. HT has consistently been the most effective means for managing many of the side effects, especially hot flashes.

Hot flashes last on average 7-11 years. But they continue in up to 40% of women in their 60s and 10%-15% in their 70s, the authors wrote. 

The analysis included more than 100 women in Canada older than 65 who continue to use HT and explored the motivations of the women to use them.

The average age of the women was 71 and nearly 8% were age 80 or older. The mean age for starting HT was 52 years and the women continued HT for an average 18 years, though 42% used it regularly for more than 20 years. Most of the women (nearly 88%) used a transdermal form of estrogen; only 12% used oral estrogen pills. Fewer than 5% of participants used synthetic progestins.

Controlling hot flashes was the No. 1 reason the women continued HT beyond age 65 (55%), followed by a desire for a better quality of life (29%), and to reduce chronic pain and arthritis symptoms (7%).

Some adverse effects were reported – postmenopausal bleeding was the most common – but no strokes, myocardial infarctions, or uterine cancers were documented.

More than one fourth (26.4%) of the women tried stopping HT once, but 87% reported that the return of hot flashes was the main reason to restart HT.

In addition, “many women choose to continue hormone therapy long term for relief of nonvasomotor symptoms, preservation of bone density, and a desire to benefit from potential long-term cardiovascular protection,” said Lauren F. Streicher, MD, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, who was not part of the research.

In 2022, The Menopause Society position statement on hormone therapy acknowledged that, on an individual basis, it is appropriate for women to continue hormone therapy long term with counseling on benefits and risks.

“However, few studies have evaluated the outcomes of using hormone therapy for more than 10 years, and individual motivation for doing so,” Dr. Streicher said. She pointed to a study that analyzed the insurance records of more than 10 million women who continued their HT past the age of 65 and reassuringly found that there were significant risk reductions in all-cause mortality, breast cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, heart failure, venous thromboembolism, atrial fibrillation, acute myocardial infarction, and dementia. In that study, however, the reasons women chose to continue hormone therapy were not specified. 

“In this retrospective Canadian study,” she noted, “the outcomes were again reassuring, with no increase in strokes, myocardial infarctions, or uterine cancers. The reasons cited for continuing hormone therapy were not just to treat ongoing vasomotor symptoms, but also other menopause symptoms such as musculoskeletal aches and pains, and overall quality of life.

Dr. Streicher said that, while long-term longitudinal studies are needed to make definitive recommendations, “It is reassuring that women who choose to extend hormone therapy can safely do so. It is irresponsible, cruel, and nonsensical to continue to make blanket statements that hormone therapy should be discontinued based on age or years of use and commit women to enduring symptoms and depriving them of possible long-term benefits.”

Dr. Streicher gives lectures for Midi Health and owns Sermonix stock. Dr. Wolfman has been on the advisory boards for many pharmaceutical companies. She is the past president of the Canadian Menopause Society and is on the board of the International Menopause Society.

Hormone therapy (HT) can help women manage menopause symptoms into their 80s and the reasons are varied, according to a retrospective analysis being presented at the annual meeting of The Menopause Society.

“It’s important to know that this is a preselected group of women who had no contraindications to continuing their hormone therapy,” senior author Wendy Wolfman, MD, director of the Menopause Clinic and The Premature Ovarian Insufficiency Clinic at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said in an interview. “They had the initiation of hormone therapy closer to menopause and carried on their hormones. We followed them for a long time and basically saw no real concerns about taking the hormones and the patients did very well. It’s important to emphasize this was not the new initiation of hormone therapy in elderly women.”

She said that, in her large tertiary referral center, “I still see patients who are referred who are told that they have to stop their hormones after 5 years based on a false assumption. Everybody ages at different rates and everybody has different risk factors.”

About 70%-80% of women experience menopause symptoms that restrict quality of life and productivity, the authors noted. HT has consistently been the most effective means for managing many of the side effects, especially hot flashes.

Hot flashes last on average 7-11 years. But they continue in up to 40% of women in their 60s and 10%-15% in their 70s, the authors wrote. 

The analysis included more than 100 women in Canada older than 65 who continue to use HT and explored the motivations of the women to use them.

The average age of the women was 71 and nearly 8% were age 80 or older. The mean age for starting HT was 52 years and the women continued HT for an average 18 years, though 42% used it regularly for more than 20 years. Most of the women (nearly 88%) used a transdermal form of estrogen; only 12% used oral estrogen pills. Fewer than 5% of participants used synthetic progestins.

Controlling hot flashes was the No. 1 reason the women continued HT beyond age 65 (55%), followed by a desire for a better quality of life (29%), and to reduce chronic pain and arthritis symptoms (7%).

Some adverse effects were reported – postmenopausal bleeding was the most common – but no strokes, myocardial infarctions, or uterine cancers were documented.

More than one fourth (26.4%) of the women tried stopping HT once, but 87% reported that the return of hot flashes was the main reason to restart HT.

In addition, “many women choose to continue hormone therapy long term for relief of nonvasomotor symptoms, preservation of bone density, and a desire to benefit from potential long-term cardiovascular protection,” said Lauren F. Streicher, MD, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, who was not part of the research.

In 2022, The Menopause Society position statement on hormone therapy acknowledged that, on an individual basis, it is appropriate for women to continue hormone therapy long term with counseling on benefits and risks.

“However, few studies have evaluated the outcomes of using hormone therapy for more than 10 years, and individual motivation for doing so,” Dr. Streicher said. She pointed to a study that analyzed the insurance records of more than 10 million women who continued their HT past the age of 65 and reassuringly found that there were significant risk reductions in all-cause mortality, breast cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, heart failure, venous thromboembolism, atrial fibrillation, acute myocardial infarction, and dementia. In that study, however, the reasons women chose to continue hormone therapy were not specified. 

“In this retrospective Canadian study,” she noted, “the outcomes were again reassuring, with no increase in strokes, myocardial infarctions, or uterine cancers. The reasons cited for continuing hormone therapy were not just to treat ongoing vasomotor symptoms, but also other menopause symptoms such as musculoskeletal aches and pains, and overall quality of life.

Dr. Streicher said that, while long-term longitudinal studies are needed to make definitive recommendations, “It is reassuring that women who choose to extend hormone therapy can safely do so. It is irresponsible, cruel, and nonsensical to continue to make blanket statements that hormone therapy should be discontinued based on age or years of use and commit women to enduring symptoms and depriving them of possible long-term benefits.”

Dr. Streicher gives lectures for Midi Health and owns Sermonix stock. Dr. Wolfman has been on the advisory boards for many pharmaceutical companies. She is the past president of the Canadian Menopause Society and is on the board of the International Menopause Society.

Hormone therapy (HT) can help women manage menopause symptoms into their 80s and the reasons are varied, according to a retrospective analysis being presented at the annual meeting of The Menopause Society.

“It’s important to know that this is a preselected group of women who had no contraindications to continuing their hormone therapy,” senior author Wendy Wolfman, MD, director of the Menopause Clinic and The Premature Ovarian Insufficiency Clinic at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said in an interview. “They had the initiation of hormone therapy closer to menopause and carried on their hormones. We followed them for a long time and basically saw no real concerns about taking the hormones and the patients did very well. It’s important to emphasize this was not the new initiation of hormone therapy in elderly women.”

She said that, in her large tertiary referral center, “I still see patients who are referred who are told that they have to stop their hormones after 5 years based on a false assumption. Everybody ages at different rates and everybody has different risk factors.”

About 70%-80% of women experience menopause symptoms that restrict quality of life and productivity, the authors noted. HT has consistently been the most effective means for managing many of the side effects, especially hot flashes.

Hot flashes last on average 7-11 years. But they continue in up to 40% of women in their 60s and 10%-15% in their 70s, the authors wrote. 

The analysis included more than 100 women in Canada older than 65 who continue to use HT and explored the motivations of the women to use them.

The average age of the women was 71 and nearly 8% were age 80 or older. The mean age for starting HT was 52 years and the women continued HT for an average 18 years, though 42% used it regularly for more than 20 years. Most of the women (nearly 88%) used a transdermal form of estrogen; only 12% used oral estrogen pills. Fewer than 5% of participants used synthetic progestins.

Controlling hot flashes was the No. 1 reason the women continued HT beyond age 65 (55%), followed by a desire for a better quality of life (29%), and to reduce chronic pain and arthritis symptoms (7%).

Some adverse effects were reported – postmenopausal bleeding was the most common – but no strokes, myocardial infarctions, or uterine cancers were documented.

More than one fourth (26.4%) of the women tried stopping HT once, but 87% reported that the return of hot flashes was the main reason to restart HT.

In addition, “many women choose to continue hormone therapy long term for relief of nonvasomotor symptoms, preservation of bone density, and a desire to benefit from potential long-term cardiovascular protection,” said Lauren F. Streicher, MD, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, who was not part of the research.

In 2022, The Menopause Society position statement on hormone therapy acknowledged that, on an individual basis, it is appropriate for women to continue hormone therapy long term with counseling on benefits and risks.

“However, few studies have evaluated the outcomes of using hormone therapy for more than 10 years, and individual motivation for doing so,” Dr. Streicher said. She pointed to a study that analyzed the insurance records of more than 10 million women who continued their HT past the age of 65 and reassuringly found that there were significant risk reductions in all-cause mortality, breast cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, heart failure, venous thromboembolism, atrial fibrillation, acute myocardial infarction, and dementia. In that study, however, the reasons women chose to continue hormone therapy were not specified. 

“In this retrospective Canadian study,” she noted, “the outcomes were again reassuring, with no increase in strokes, myocardial infarctions, or uterine cancers. The reasons cited for continuing hormone therapy were not just to treat ongoing vasomotor symptoms, but also other menopause symptoms such as musculoskeletal aches and pains, and overall quality of life.

Dr. Streicher said that, while long-term longitudinal studies are needed to make definitive recommendations, “It is reassuring that women who choose to extend hormone therapy can safely do so. It is irresponsible, cruel, and nonsensical to continue to make blanket statements that hormone therapy should be discontinued based on age or years of use and commit women to enduring symptoms and depriving them of possible long-term benefits.”

Dr. Streicher gives lectures for Midi Health and owns Sermonix stock. Dr. Wolfman has been on the advisory boards for many pharmaceutical companies. She is the past president of the Canadian Menopause Society and is on the board of the International Menopause Society.

TOPLINE:

Addressing vision impairments could help with dementia prevention, as vision impairment is linked to 19% of dementia cases in older adults.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS).
• The analysis included 2767 US adults aged 71 years or older (54.7% female and 45.3% male).
• Vision impairments were defined using 2019 World Health Organization criteria. Near and distance vision impairments were defined as greater than 0.30 logMAR, and contrast sensitivity impairment was identified by scores below 1.55 logCS.
• Dementia was classified using a standardized algorithm developed in NHATS, which incorporated a series of tests measuring cognition, memory and orientation, reports of Alzheimer’s disease, or a dementia diagnosis from the patient or a proxy, and an informant questionnaire (Ascertain Dementia-8 Dementia Screening Interview).
• The study analyzed data from 2021, with the primary outcome being the population attributable fraction (PAF) of dementia from vision impairment.

TAKEAWAY:

• The PAF of dementia associated with at least one vision impairment was 19% (95% CI, 8.2-29.7).
• Impairment in contrast sensitivity had the highest PAF among all other vision issues, at 15% (95% CI, 6.6-23.6). This figure was higher than that for impairment of near acuity, at 9.7% (95% CI, 2.6-17.0), or distance acuity, at 4.9% (95% CI, 0.1-9.9).
• The highest PAFs for dementia due to vision impairment was among participants aged 71-79 years (24.3%; 95% CI, 6.6-41.8), women (26.8%; 95% CI, 12.2-39.9), and non-Hispanic White participants (22.3%; 95% CI, 9.6-34.5).

IN PRACTICE:

“While not proving a cause-and-effect relationship, these findings support inclusion of multiple objective measures of vision impairments, including contrast sensitivity and visual acuity, to capture the total potential impact of addressing vision impairment on dementia,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Jason R. Smith, ScM, of the Department of Epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. It was published online in JAMA Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The limited sample sizes for American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, and Hispanic groups prevented researchers from calculating PAFs for these populations. The cross-sectional design prevented the researchers from examining the timing of vision impairment in relation to a diagnosis of dementia. The study did not explore links between other measures of vision and dementia. Those with early cognitive impairment may not have updated glasses, affecting visual performance. The findings from the study may not apply to institutionalized older adults.

DISCLOSURES:

Jennifer A. Deal, PhD, MHS, reported receiving personal fees from Frontiers in Epidemiology, Velux Stiftung, and Medical Education Speakers Network outside the submitted work. Nicholas S. Reed, AuD, PhD, reported receiving stock options from Neosensory outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Addressing vision impairments could help with dementia prevention, as vision impairment is linked to 19% of dementia cases in older adults.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS).
• The analysis included 2767 US adults aged 71 years or older (54.7% female and 45.3% male).
• Vision impairments were defined using 2019 World Health Organization criteria. Near and distance vision impairments were defined as greater than 0.30 logMAR, and contrast sensitivity impairment was identified by scores below 1.55 logCS.
• Dementia was classified using a standardized algorithm developed in NHATS, which incorporated a series of tests measuring cognition, memory and orientation, reports of Alzheimer’s disease, or a dementia diagnosis from the patient or a proxy, and an informant questionnaire (Ascertain Dementia-8 Dementia Screening Interview).
• The study analyzed data from 2021, with the primary outcome being the population attributable fraction (PAF) of dementia from vision impairment.

TAKEAWAY:

• The PAF of dementia associated with at least one vision impairment was 19% (95% CI, 8.2-29.7).
• Impairment in contrast sensitivity had the highest PAF among all other vision issues, at 15% (95% CI, 6.6-23.6). This figure was higher than that for impairment of near acuity, at 9.7% (95% CI, 2.6-17.0), or distance acuity, at 4.9% (95% CI, 0.1-9.9).
• The highest PAFs for dementia due to vision impairment was among participants aged 71-79 years (24.3%; 95% CI, 6.6-41.8), women (26.8%; 95% CI, 12.2-39.9), and non-Hispanic White participants (22.3%; 95% CI, 9.6-34.5).

IN PRACTICE:

“While not proving a cause-and-effect relationship, these findings support inclusion of multiple objective measures of vision impairments, including contrast sensitivity and visual acuity, to capture the total potential impact of addressing vision impairment on dementia,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Jason R. Smith, ScM, of the Department of Epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. It was published online in JAMA Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The limited sample sizes for American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, and Hispanic groups prevented researchers from calculating PAFs for these populations. The cross-sectional design prevented the researchers from examining the timing of vision impairment in relation to a diagnosis of dementia. The study did not explore links between other measures of vision and dementia. Those with early cognitive impairment may not have updated glasses, affecting visual performance. The findings from the study may not apply to institutionalized older adults.

DISCLOSURES:

Jennifer A. Deal, PhD, MHS, reported receiving personal fees from Frontiers in Epidemiology, Velux Stiftung, and Medical Education Speakers Network outside the submitted work. Nicholas S. Reed, AuD, PhD, reported receiving stock options from Neosensory outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Addressing vision impairments could help with dementia prevention, as vision impairment is linked to 19% of dementia cases in older adults.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS).
• The analysis included 2767 US adults aged 71 years or older (54.7% female and 45.3% male).
• Vision impairments were defined using 2019 World Health Organization criteria. Near and distance vision impairments were defined as greater than 0.30 logMAR, and contrast sensitivity impairment was identified by scores below 1.55 logCS.
• Dementia was classified using a standardized algorithm developed in NHATS, which incorporated a series of tests measuring cognition, memory and orientation, reports of Alzheimer’s disease, or a dementia diagnosis from the patient or a proxy, and an informant questionnaire (Ascertain Dementia-8 Dementia Screening Interview).
• The study analyzed data from 2021, with the primary outcome being the population attributable fraction (PAF) of dementia from vision impairment.

TAKEAWAY:

• The PAF of dementia associated with at least one vision impairment was 19% (95% CI, 8.2-29.7).
• Impairment in contrast sensitivity had the highest PAF among all other vision issues, at 15% (95% CI, 6.6-23.6). This figure was higher than that for impairment of near acuity, at 9.7% (95% CI, 2.6-17.0), or distance acuity, at 4.9% (95% CI, 0.1-9.9).
• The highest PAFs for dementia due to vision impairment was among participants aged 71-79 years (24.3%; 95% CI, 6.6-41.8), women (26.8%; 95% CI, 12.2-39.9), and non-Hispanic White participants (22.3%; 95% CI, 9.6-34.5).

IN PRACTICE:

“While not proving a cause-and-effect relationship, these findings support inclusion of multiple objective measures of vision impairments, including contrast sensitivity and visual acuity, to capture the total potential impact of addressing vision impairment on dementia,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Jason R. Smith, ScM, of the Department of Epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. It was published online in JAMA Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The limited sample sizes for American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, and Hispanic groups prevented researchers from calculating PAFs for these populations. The cross-sectional design prevented the researchers from examining the timing of vision impairment in relation to a diagnosis of dementia. The study did not explore links between other measures of vision and dementia. Those with early cognitive impairment may not have updated glasses, affecting visual performance. The findings from the study may not apply to institutionalized older adults.

DISCLOSURES:

Jennifer A. Deal, PhD, MHS, reported receiving personal fees from Frontiers in Epidemiology, Velux Stiftung, and Medical Education Speakers Network outside the submitted work. Nicholas S. Reed, AuD, PhD, reported receiving stock options from Neosensory outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis who were operated on within 1 day of admission were less likely to die in the hospital compared with those who were treated with nonsurgical management or who had a delayed surgery.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 24,320 older adults (median age, 72 years; 50.9% women; 75.6% White) with uncomplicated appendicitis over a 2-year period starting in 2016; of these, 7290 patients were frail.
• Patients received nonsurgical treatment, immediate appendectomy within 1 day of admission, or delayed surgery after more than 1 day of admission.
• The clinical outcomes included infectious complications using a composite, cardiopulmonary complications, in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and total hospital costs.
• Frailty of patients was assessed using a claims-based index producing a score ranging from 0 to 1 on the basis of 93 variables.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with frailty had higher rates of infections (1.3% vs 0.4%), cardiopulmonary complications (24.1% vs 6.3%), overall complications (57.1% vs 28.8%), in-hospital deaths (3.9% vs 0.3%), longer hospital stays (6 vs 4 days), and higher hospital costs ($67,000 vs $42,000) than those without frailty (P < .001).
• Patients with frailty who had immediate surgery had lower risk for death than those who received nonsurgical treatment (odds ratio [OR], 2.89; P = .004) and delayed surgery (OR, 3.80; P = .001).
• In patients without frailty, immediate surgery was linked to a higher risk for hospital complications than nonsurgical treatment (OR, 0.77; P = .009), but it was linked to a lower risk than delayed appendectomy (OR, 2.05; P < .001).
• Black patients were less likely to receive immediate appendectomy compared with White patients (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that treatment of older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis may benefit from risk stratification based on patient frailty status,” the authors wrote. “Routine frailty assessments should be incorporated in the care of older adult patients to guide discussions for shared decision-making,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Matthew Ashbrook, MD, MPH, of the Department of Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Modification of the frailty index and reliance on discharge diagnosis could have resulted in misclassification bias. The timing of presentation of symptoms was not assessed. Also, lack of long-term data prevented tracking of readmissions and related complications.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis who were operated on within 1 day of admission were less likely to die in the hospital compared with those who were treated with nonsurgical management or who had a delayed surgery.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 24,320 older adults (median age, 72 years; 50.9% women; 75.6% White) with uncomplicated appendicitis over a 2-year period starting in 2016; of these, 7290 patients were frail.
• Patients received nonsurgical treatment, immediate appendectomy within 1 day of admission, or delayed surgery after more than 1 day of admission.
• The clinical outcomes included infectious complications using a composite, cardiopulmonary complications, in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and total hospital costs.
• Frailty of patients was assessed using a claims-based index producing a score ranging from 0 to 1 on the basis of 93 variables.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with frailty had higher rates of infections (1.3% vs 0.4%), cardiopulmonary complications (24.1% vs 6.3%), overall complications (57.1% vs 28.8%), in-hospital deaths (3.9% vs 0.3%), longer hospital stays (6 vs 4 days), and higher hospital costs ($67,000 vs $42,000) than those without frailty (P < .001).
• Patients with frailty who had immediate surgery had lower risk for death than those who received nonsurgical treatment (odds ratio [OR], 2.89; P = .004) and delayed surgery (OR, 3.80; P = .001).
• In patients without frailty, immediate surgery was linked to a higher risk for hospital complications than nonsurgical treatment (OR, 0.77; P = .009), but it was linked to a lower risk than delayed appendectomy (OR, 2.05; P < .001).
• Black patients were less likely to receive immediate appendectomy compared with White patients (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that treatment of older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis may benefit from risk stratification based on patient frailty status,” the authors wrote. “Routine frailty assessments should be incorporated in the care of older adult patients to guide discussions for shared decision-making,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Matthew Ashbrook, MD, MPH, of the Department of Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Modification of the frailty index and reliance on discharge diagnosis could have resulted in misclassification bias. The timing of presentation of symptoms was not assessed. Also, lack of long-term data prevented tracking of readmissions and related complications.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis who were operated on within 1 day of admission were less likely to die in the hospital compared with those who were treated with nonsurgical management or who had a delayed surgery.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 24,320 older adults (median age, 72 years; 50.9% women; 75.6% White) with uncomplicated appendicitis over a 2-year period starting in 2016; of these, 7290 patients were frail.
• Patients received nonsurgical treatment, immediate appendectomy within 1 day of admission, or delayed surgery after more than 1 day of admission.
• The clinical outcomes included infectious complications using a composite, cardiopulmonary complications, in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and total hospital costs.
• Frailty of patients was assessed using a claims-based index producing a score ranging from 0 to 1 on the basis of 93 variables.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with frailty had higher rates of infections (1.3% vs 0.4%), cardiopulmonary complications (24.1% vs 6.3%), overall complications (57.1% vs 28.8%), in-hospital deaths (3.9% vs 0.3%), longer hospital stays (6 vs 4 days), and higher hospital costs ($67,000 vs $42,000) than those without frailty (P < .001).
• Patients with frailty who had immediate surgery had lower risk for death than those who received nonsurgical treatment (odds ratio [OR], 2.89; P = .004) and delayed surgery (OR, 3.80; P = .001).
• In patients without frailty, immediate surgery was linked to a higher risk for hospital complications than nonsurgical treatment (OR, 0.77; P = .009), but it was linked to a lower risk than delayed appendectomy (OR, 2.05; P < .001).
• Black patients were less likely to receive immediate appendectomy compared with White patients (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that treatment of older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis may benefit from risk stratification based on patient frailty status,” the authors wrote. “Routine frailty assessments should be incorporated in the care of older adult patients to guide discussions for shared decision-making,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Matthew Ashbrook, MD, MPH, of the Department of Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Modification of the frailty index and reliance on discharge diagnosis could have resulted in misclassification bias. The timing of presentation of symptoms was not assessed. Also, lack of long-term data prevented tracking of readmissions and related complications.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Living in areas saturated with artificial outdoor light at night is associated with an increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease, a new national study suggested.

Analyses of state and county light pollution data and Medicare claims showed that areas with higher average nighttime light intensity had a greater prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease.

Among people aged 65 years or older, Alzheimer’s disease prevalence was more strongly associated with nightly light pollution exposure than with alcohol misuse, chronic kidney disease, depression, or obesity.

In those younger than 65 years, greater nighttime light intensity had a stronger association with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than any other risk factor included in the study.

“The results are pretty striking when you do these comparisons and it’s true for people of all ages,” said Robin Voigt-Zuwala, PhD, lead author and director, Circadian Rhythm Research Laboratory, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois.

The study was published online in Frontiers of Neuroscience.
 

Shining a Light

Exposure to artificial outdoor light at night has been associated with adverse health effects such as sleep disruption, obesity, atherosclerosis, and cancer, but this is the first study to look specifically at Alzheimer’s disease, investigators noted.

Two recent studies reported higher risks for mild cognitive impairment among Chinese veterans and late-onset dementia among Italian residents living in areas with brighter outdoor light at night.

For this study, Dr. Voigt-Zuwala and colleagues examined the relationship between Alzheimer’s disease prevalence and average nighttime light intensity in the lower 48 states using data from Medicare Part A and B, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and NASA satellite–acquired radiance data.

The data were averaged for the years 2012-2018 and states divided into five groups based on average nighttime light intensity.

The darkest states were Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, Maine, New Mexico, Vermont, Oregon, Utah, and Nevada. The brightest states were Indiana, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, and New Jersey.

Analysis of variance revealed a significant difference in Alzheimer’s disease prevalence between state groups (P < .0001). Multiple comparisons testing also showed that states with the lowest average nighttime light had significantly different Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than those with higher intensity.

The same positive relationship was observed when each year was assessed individually and at the county level, using data from 45 counties and the District of Columbia.
 

Strong Association

The investigators also found that state average nighttime light intensity is significantly associated with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence (P = .006). This effect was seen across all ages, sexes, and races except Asian Pacific Island, the latter possibly related to statistical power, the authors said.

When known or proposed risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease were added to the model, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and stroke had a stronger association with Alzheimer’s disease than average nighttime light intensity.

Nighttime light intensity, however, was more strongly associated with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than alcohol abuse, chronic kidney disease, depression, heart failure, and obesity.

Moreover, in people younger than 65 years, nighttime light pollution had a stronger association with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than all other risk factors (P = .007).

The mechanism behind this increased vulnerability is unclear, but there may be an interplay between genetic susceptibility of an individual and how they respond to light, Dr. Voigt-Zuwala suggested.

“APOE4 is the genotype most highly associated with Alzheimer’s disease risk, and maybe the people who have that genotype are just more sensitive to the effects of light exposure at night, more sensitive to circadian rhythm disruption,” she said.

The authors noted that additional research is needed but suggested light pollution may also influence Alzheimer’s disease through sleep disruption, which can promote inflammation, activate microglia and astrocytes, and negatively alter the clearance of amyloid beta, and by decreasing the levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor.
 

Are We Measuring the Right Light?

“It’s a good article and it’s got a good message, but I have some caveats to that,” said George C. Brainard, PhD, director, Light Research Program, Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and a pioneer in the study of how light affects biology including breast cancer in night-shift workers.

The biggest caveat, and one acknowledged by the authors, is that the study didn’t measure indoor light exposure and relied instead on satellite imaging.

“They’re very striking images, but they may not be particularly relevant. And here’s why: People don’t live outdoors all night,” Dr. Brainard said.

Instead, people spend much of their time at night indoors where they’re exposed to lighting in the home and from smartphones, laptops, and television screens.

“It doesn’t invalidate their work. It’s an important advancement, an important observation,” Dr. Brainard said. “But the important thing really is to find out what is the population exposed to that triggers this response, and it’s probably indoor lighting related to the amount and physical characteristics of indoor lighting. It doesn’t mean outdoor lighting can’t play a role. It certainly can.”

Reached for comment, Erik Musiek, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology whose lab at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, has extensively studied circadian clock disruption and Alzheimer’s disease pathology in the brain, said the study provides a 10,000-foot view of the issue.

For example, the study was not designed to detect whether people living in high light pollution areas are actually experiencing more outdoor light at night and if risk factors such as air pollution and low socioeconomic status may correlate with these areas.

“Most of what we worry about is do people have lights on in the house, do they have their TV on, their screens up to their face late at night? This can’t tell us about that,” Dr. Musiek said. “But on the other hand, this kind of light exposure is something that public policy can affect.”

“It’s hard to control people’s personal habits nor should we probably, but we can control what types of bulbs you put into streetlights, how bright they are, and where you put lighting in a public place,” he added. “So I do think there’s value there.”

At least 19 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have laws in place to reduce light pollution, with the majority doing so to promote energy conservation, public safety, aesthetic interests, or astronomical research, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

To respond to some of the limitations in this study, Dr. Voigt-Zuwala is writing a grant application for a new project to look at both indoor and outdoor light exposure on an individual level.

“This is what I’ve been wanting to study for a long time, and this study is just sort of the stepping stone, the proof of concept that this is something we need to be investigating,” she said.

Dr. Voigt-Zuwala reported RO1 and R24 grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), one coauthor reported an NIH R24 grant; another reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Brainard reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Musiek reported research funding from Eisai Pharmaceuticals.

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

Living in areas saturated with artificial outdoor light at night is associated with an increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease, a new national study suggested.

Analyses of state and county light pollution data and Medicare claims showed that areas with higher average nighttime light intensity had a greater prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease.

Among people aged 65 years or older, Alzheimer’s disease prevalence was more strongly associated with nightly light pollution exposure than with alcohol misuse, chronic kidney disease, depression, or obesity.

In those younger than 65 years, greater nighttime light intensity had a stronger association with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than any other risk factor included in the study.

“The results are pretty striking when you do these comparisons and it’s true for people of all ages,” said Robin Voigt-Zuwala, PhD, lead author and director, Circadian Rhythm Research Laboratory, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois.

The study was published online in Frontiers of Neuroscience.
 

Shining a Light

Exposure to artificial outdoor light at night has been associated with adverse health effects such as sleep disruption, obesity, atherosclerosis, and cancer, but this is the first study to look specifically at Alzheimer’s disease, investigators noted.

Two recent studies reported higher risks for mild cognitive impairment among Chinese veterans and late-onset dementia among Italian residents living in areas with brighter outdoor light at night.

For this study, Dr. Voigt-Zuwala and colleagues examined the relationship between Alzheimer’s disease prevalence and average nighttime light intensity in the lower 48 states using data from Medicare Part A and B, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and NASA satellite–acquired radiance data.

The data were averaged for the years 2012-2018 and states divided into five groups based on average nighttime light intensity.

The darkest states were Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, Maine, New Mexico, Vermont, Oregon, Utah, and Nevada. The brightest states were Indiana, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, and New Jersey.

Analysis of variance revealed a significant difference in Alzheimer’s disease prevalence between state groups (P < .0001). Multiple comparisons testing also showed that states with the lowest average nighttime light had significantly different Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than those with higher intensity.

The same positive relationship was observed when each year was assessed individually and at the county level, using data from 45 counties and the District of Columbia.
 

Strong Association

The investigators also found that state average nighttime light intensity is significantly associated with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence (P = .006). This effect was seen across all ages, sexes, and races except Asian Pacific Island, the latter possibly related to statistical power, the authors said.

When known or proposed risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease were added to the model, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and stroke had a stronger association with Alzheimer’s disease than average nighttime light intensity.

Nighttime light intensity, however, was more strongly associated with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than alcohol abuse, chronic kidney disease, depression, heart failure, and obesity.

Moreover, in people younger than 65 years, nighttime light pollution had a stronger association with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than all other risk factors (P = .007).

The mechanism behind this increased vulnerability is unclear, but there may be an interplay between genetic susceptibility of an individual and how they respond to light, Dr. Voigt-Zuwala suggested.

“APOE4 is the genotype most highly associated with Alzheimer’s disease risk, and maybe the people who have that genotype are just more sensitive to the effects of light exposure at night, more sensitive to circadian rhythm disruption,” she said.

The authors noted that additional research is needed but suggested light pollution may also influence Alzheimer’s disease through sleep disruption, which can promote inflammation, activate microglia and astrocytes, and negatively alter the clearance of amyloid beta, and by decreasing the levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor.
 

Are We Measuring the Right Light?

“It’s a good article and it’s got a good message, but I have some caveats to that,” said George C. Brainard, PhD, director, Light Research Program, Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and a pioneer in the study of how light affects biology including breast cancer in night-shift workers.

The biggest caveat, and one acknowledged by the authors, is that the study didn’t measure indoor light exposure and relied instead on satellite imaging.

“They’re very striking images, but they may not be particularly relevant. And here’s why: People don’t live outdoors all night,” Dr. Brainard said.

Instead, people spend much of their time at night indoors where they’re exposed to lighting in the home and from smartphones, laptops, and television screens.

“It doesn’t invalidate their work. It’s an important advancement, an important observation,” Dr. Brainard said. “But the important thing really is to find out what is the population exposed to that triggers this response, and it’s probably indoor lighting related to the amount and physical characteristics of indoor lighting. It doesn’t mean outdoor lighting can’t play a role. It certainly can.”

Reached for comment, Erik Musiek, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology whose lab at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, has extensively studied circadian clock disruption and Alzheimer’s disease pathology in the brain, said the study provides a 10,000-foot view of the issue.

For example, the study was not designed to detect whether people living in high light pollution areas are actually experiencing more outdoor light at night and if risk factors such as air pollution and low socioeconomic status may correlate with these areas.

“Most of what we worry about is do people have lights on in the house, do they have their TV on, their screens up to their face late at night? This can’t tell us about that,” Dr. Musiek said. “But on the other hand, this kind of light exposure is something that public policy can affect.”

“It’s hard to control people’s personal habits nor should we probably, but we can control what types of bulbs you put into streetlights, how bright they are, and where you put lighting in a public place,” he added. “So I do think there’s value there.”

At least 19 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have laws in place to reduce light pollution, with the majority doing so to promote energy conservation, public safety, aesthetic interests, or astronomical research, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

To respond to some of the limitations in this study, Dr. Voigt-Zuwala is writing a grant application for a new project to look at both indoor and outdoor light exposure on an individual level.

“This is what I’ve been wanting to study for a long time, and this study is just sort of the stepping stone, the proof of concept that this is something we need to be investigating,” she said.

Dr. Voigt-Zuwala reported RO1 and R24 grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), one coauthor reported an NIH R24 grant; another reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Brainard reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Musiek reported research funding from Eisai Pharmaceuticals.

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

Living in areas saturated with artificial outdoor light at night is associated with an increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease, a new national study suggested.

Analyses of state and county light pollution data and Medicare claims showed that areas with higher average nighttime light intensity had a greater prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease.

Among people aged 65 years or older, Alzheimer’s disease prevalence was more strongly associated with nightly light pollution exposure than with alcohol misuse, chronic kidney disease, depression, or obesity.

In those younger than 65 years, greater nighttime light intensity had a stronger association with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than any other risk factor included in the study.

“The results are pretty striking when you do these comparisons and it’s true for people of all ages,” said Robin Voigt-Zuwala, PhD, lead author and director, Circadian Rhythm Research Laboratory, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois.

The study was published online in Frontiers of Neuroscience.
 

Shining a Light

Exposure to artificial outdoor light at night has been associated with adverse health effects such as sleep disruption, obesity, atherosclerosis, and cancer, but this is the first study to look specifically at Alzheimer’s disease, investigators noted.

Two recent studies reported higher risks for mild cognitive impairment among Chinese veterans and late-onset dementia among Italian residents living in areas with brighter outdoor light at night.

For this study, Dr. Voigt-Zuwala and colleagues examined the relationship between Alzheimer’s disease prevalence and average nighttime light intensity in the lower 48 states using data from Medicare Part A and B, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and NASA satellite–acquired radiance data.

The data were averaged for the years 2012-2018 and states divided into five groups based on average nighttime light intensity.

The darkest states were Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, Maine, New Mexico, Vermont, Oregon, Utah, and Nevada. The brightest states were Indiana, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, and New Jersey.

Analysis of variance revealed a significant difference in Alzheimer’s disease prevalence between state groups (P < .0001). Multiple comparisons testing also showed that states with the lowest average nighttime light had significantly different Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than those with higher intensity.

The same positive relationship was observed when each year was assessed individually and at the county level, using data from 45 counties and the District of Columbia.
 

Strong Association

The investigators also found that state average nighttime light intensity is significantly associated with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence (P = .006). This effect was seen across all ages, sexes, and races except Asian Pacific Island, the latter possibly related to statistical power, the authors said.

When known or proposed risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease were added to the model, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and stroke had a stronger association with Alzheimer’s disease than average nighttime light intensity.

Nighttime light intensity, however, was more strongly associated with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than alcohol abuse, chronic kidney disease, depression, heart failure, and obesity.

Moreover, in people younger than 65 years, nighttime light pollution had a stronger association with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than all other risk factors (P = .007).

The mechanism behind this increased vulnerability is unclear, but there may be an interplay between genetic susceptibility of an individual and how they respond to light, Dr. Voigt-Zuwala suggested.

“APOE4 is the genotype most highly associated with Alzheimer’s disease risk, and maybe the people who have that genotype are just more sensitive to the effects of light exposure at night, more sensitive to circadian rhythm disruption,” she said.

The authors noted that additional research is needed but suggested light pollution may also influence Alzheimer’s disease through sleep disruption, which can promote inflammation, activate microglia and astrocytes, and negatively alter the clearance of amyloid beta, and by decreasing the levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor.
 

Are We Measuring the Right Light?

“It’s a good article and it’s got a good message, but I have some caveats to that,” said George C. Brainard, PhD, director, Light Research Program, Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and a pioneer in the study of how light affects biology including breast cancer in night-shift workers.

The biggest caveat, and one acknowledged by the authors, is that the study didn’t measure indoor light exposure and relied instead on satellite imaging.

“They’re very striking images, but they may not be particularly relevant. And here’s why: People don’t live outdoors all night,” Dr. Brainard said.

Instead, people spend much of their time at night indoors where they’re exposed to lighting in the home and from smartphones, laptops, and television screens.

“It doesn’t invalidate their work. It’s an important advancement, an important observation,” Dr. Brainard said. “But the important thing really is to find out what is the population exposed to that triggers this response, and it’s probably indoor lighting related to the amount and physical characteristics of indoor lighting. It doesn’t mean outdoor lighting can’t play a role. It certainly can.”

Reached for comment, Erik Musiek, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology whose lab at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, has extensively studied circadian clock disruption and Alzheimer’s disease pathology in the brain, said the study provides a 10,000-foot view of the issue.

For example, the study was not designed to detect whether people living in high light pollution areas are actually experiencing more outdoor light at night and if risk factors such as air pollution and low socioeconomic status may correlate with these areas.

“Most of what we worry about is do people have lights on in the house, do they have their TV on, their screens up to their face late at night? This can’t tell us about that,” Dr. Musiek said. “But on the other hand, this kind of light exposure is something that public policy can affect.”

“It’s hard to control people’s personal habits nor should we probably, but we can control what types of bulbs you put into streetlights, how bright they are, and where you put lighting in a public place,” he added. “So I do think there’s value there.”

At least 19 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have laws in place to reduce light pollution, with the majority doing so to promote energy conservation, public safety, aesthetic interests, or astronomical research, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

To respond to some of the limitations in this study, Dr. Voigt-Zuwala is writing a grant application for a new project to look at both indoor and outdoor light exposure on an individual level.

“This is what I’ve been wanting to study for a long time, and this study is just sort of the stepping stone, the proof of concept that this is something we need to be investigating,” she said.

Dr. Voigt-Zuwala reported RO1 and R24 grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), one coauthor reported an NIH R24 grant; another reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Brainard reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Musiek reported research funding from Eisai Pharmaceuticals.

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

TOPLINE:

The use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) increases breast cancer risk in women with a strong family history of breast cancer. These women have a striking cumulative risk of developing breast cancer (age, 50-80 years) of 22.4%, according to a new modelling study of UK women.

METHODOLOGY:

This was a modeling study integrating two data-sets of UK women: the BOADICEA dataset of age-specific breast cancer risk with family history and the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, which covers relative risk for breast cancer with different types and durations of MHT.

Four different breast cancer family history profiles were:

• “Average” family history of breast cancer has unknown affected family members;
• “Modest” family history comprises a single first-degree relative with breast cancer at the age of 60 years.
• “Intermediate” family history comprises a single first-degree relative who developed breast cancer at the age of 40 years.
• “Strong” family history comprises two first-degree relatives who developed breast cancer at the age of 50 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The lowest risk category: “Average” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 9.8% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 1.7%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 11.0% and 1.8%, respectively.
• The highest risk category: “Strong” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 19.6% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 3.2%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 22.4% and 3.5%, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors concluded that, “These integrated data will enable more accurate estimates of absolute and attributable risk associated with MHT exposure for women with a family history of breast cancer, informing shared decision-making.”

SOURCE:

The lead author is Catherine Huntley of the Institute of Cancer Research, London, England. The study appeared in the British Journal of General Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included modeling study that did not directly measure individuals with combined risks.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by several sources including Cancer Research UK. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

The use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) increases breast cancer risk in women with a strong family history of breast cancer. These women have a striking cumulative risk of developing breast cancer (age, 50-80 years) of 22.4%, according to a new modelling study of UK women.

METHODOLOGY:

This was a modeling study integrating two data-sets of UK women: the BOADICEA dataset of age-specific breast cancer risk with family history and the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, which covers relative risk for breast cancer with different types and durations of MHT.

Four different breast cancer family history profiles were:

• “Average” family history of breast cancer has unknown affected family members;
• “Modest” family history comprises a single first-degree relative with breast cancer at the age of 60 years.
• “Intermediate” family history comprises a single first-degree relative who developed breast cancer at the age of 40 years.
• “Strong” family history comprises two first-degree relatives who developed breast cancer at the age of 50 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The lowest risk category: “Average” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 9.8% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 1.7%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 11.0% and 1.8%, respectively.
• The highest risk category: “Strong” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 19.6% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 3.2%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 22.4% and 3.5%, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors concluded that, “These integrated data will enable more accurate estimates of absolute and attributable risk associated with MHT exposure for women with a family history of breast cancer, informing shared decision-making.”

SOURCE:

The lead author is Catherine Huntley of the Institute of Cancer Research, London, England. The study appeared in the British Journal of General Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included modeling study that did not directly measure individuals with combined risks.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by several sources including Cancer Research UK. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

The use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) increases breast cancer risk in women with a strong family history of breast cancer. These women have a striking cumulative risk of developing breast cancer (age, 50-80 years) of 22.4%, according to a new modelling study of UK women.

METHODOLOGY:

This was a modeling study integrating two data-sets of UK women: the BOADICEA dataset of age-specific breast cancer risk with family history and the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, which covers relative risk for breast cancer with different types and durations of MHT.

Four different breast cancer family history profiles were:

• “Average” family history of breast cancer has unknown affected family members;
• “Modest” family history comprises a single first-degree relative with breast cancer at the age of 60 years.
• “Intermediate” family history comprises a single first-degree relative who developed breast cancer at the age of 40 years.
• “Strong” family history comprises two first-degree relatives who developed breast cancer at the age of 50 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The lowest risk category: “Average” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 9.8% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 1.7%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 11.0% and 1.8%, respectively.
• The highest risk category: “Strong” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 19.6% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 3.2%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 22.4% and 3.5%, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors concluded that, “These integrated data will enable more accurate estimates of absolute and attributable risk associated with MHT exposure for women with a family history of breast cancer, informing shared decision-making.”

SOURCE:

The lead author is Catherine Huntley of the Institute of Cancer Research, London, England. The study appeared in the British Journal of General Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included modeling study that did not directly measure individuals with combined risks.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by several sources including Cancer Research UK. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Tricia Ward: I’m joined today by Dr. Scott R. Garrison, MD, PhD. He is a professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and director of the Pragmatic Trials Collaborative.

You presented two studies at ESC. One is the BedMed study, comparing day vs nighttime dosing of blood pressure therapy. Can you tell us the top-line findings? 
 

BedMed and BedMed-Frail

Dr. Garrison: We were looking to validate an earlier study that suggested a large benefit of taking blood pressure medication at bedtime, as far as reducing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). That was the MAPEC study. They suggested a 60% reduction. The BedMed trial was in hypertensive primary care patients in five Canadian provinces. We randomized well over 3000 patients to bedtime or morning medications. We looked at MACEs — so all-cause death or hospitalizations for acute coronary syndrome, stroke, or heart failure, and a bunch of safety outcomes.

Essentially, we found that it made absolutely no difference whatever time of day you took it in terms of MACEs and it didn’t make any difference to the adverse effects. It was safe to take it at bedtime. But it did not convey any extra cardiovascular benefit.

Ms. Ward: And then you did a second study, called BedMed-Frail. Do you want to tell us the reason you did that?

Dr. Garrison: BedMed-Frail took place in a nursing home population. We believed that it was possible that frail, older adults might have very different risks and benefits, and that they would probably be underrepresented, as they normally are in the main trial. 

We thought that because bedtime blood pressure medications would be theoretically preferentially lowering night pressure, which is already the lowest pressure of the day, that if you were at risk for hypotensive or ischemic adverse events, that might make it worse. We looked at falls and fractures; worsening cognition in case they had vascular dementia; and whether they developed decubitus ulcers (pressure sores) because you need a certain amount of pressure to get past any obstruction — in this case, it’s the weight of your body if you’re lying in bed all the time. 

We also looked at problem behaviors. People who have dementia have what’s called “sundowning,” where agitation and confusion are worse as the evening is going on. We looked at that on the off chance that it had anything to do with blood pressures being lower. And the BedMed-Frail results mirror those of BedMed exactly. So there was no cardiovascular benefit, and in this population, that was largely driven by mortality; one third of these people died every year. 

Ms. Ward: The median age was about 88?

Dr. Garrison: Yes, the median age was 88. There was no cardiovascular mortality advantage to bedtime dosing, but neither was there any signal of safety concerns. 
 

Other Complementary and Conflicting Studies

Ms. Ward: These two studies mirror the TIME study from the United Kingdom.

Dr. Garrison: Yes. We found exactly what TIME found. Our point estimate was pretty much the same. The hazard ratio in the main trial was 0.96. Theirs, I believe, was 0.95. Our findings agree completely with those of TIME and differ substantially from the previous trials that suggested a large benefit.

Ms. Ward: Those previous trials were MAPEC and the Hygia Chronotherapy Trial.

Dr. Garrison: MAPEC was the first one. While we were doing our trial, and while the TIME investigators were doing their trial, both of us trying to validate MAPEC, the same group published another study called Hygia, which also reported a large reduction: a 45% reduction in MACE with bedtime dosing.

Ms. Ward: You didn’t present it, but there was also a meta-analysis presented here by somebody independent.

Dr. Garrison: Yes, Ricky Turgeon. I know Ricky. We gave him patient-level data for his meta-analysis, but I was not otherwise involved. 

Ms. Ward: And the conclusion is the same.

Dr. Garrison: It’s the same. He only found the same five trials: MAPEC, Hygia, TIME, BedMed, and BedMed-Frail. Combining them all together, the CIs still span 1.0, so it didn’t end up being significant. But he also analyzed TIME and the BedMed trials separately — again suggesting that those trials showed no benefit.

Ms. Ward: There was a TIME substudy of night owls vs early risers or morning people, and there was a hint (or whatever you should say for a subanalysis of a neutral trial) that timing might make a difference there.

Dr. Garrison: They recently published, I guess it is a substudy, where they looked at people’s chronotype according to whether you consider yourself an early bird or a night owl. Their assessment was more detailed. They reported that if people were tending toward being early birds and they took their blood pressure medicine in the morning, or if they were night owls and they took it in the evening, that they tended to have statistically significantly better outcomes than the opposite timing. In that analysis, they were only looking at nonfatal myocardial infarction and nonfatal stroke. 

We did ask something that was related. We asked people: “Do we consider yourself more of an early bird or a night owl?” So we do have those data. For what I presented at ESC, we just looked at the primary outcome; we did subgroups according to early bird, night owl, and neither, and that was not statistically significant. It didn’t rule it out. There were some trends in the direction that the TIME group were suggesting. We do intend to do a closer look at that. 

But, you know, they call these “late-breaking trials,” and it really was in our case. We didn’t get the last of our data from the last province until the end of June, so we still are finishing up the analysis of the chronotype portion — so more to come in another month or so.
 

Do What You Like, or Stick to Morning Dosing?

Ms. Ward: For the purposes of people’s take-home message, does this mostly apply to once-daily–dosed antihypertensives?

Dr. Garrison: It was essentially once-daily medicines that were changed. The docs did have the opportunity to consolidate twice-daily meds into once-daily or switch to a different medication. That’s probably the area where adherence was the biggest issue, because it’s largely beta-blockers that were given twice daily at baseline, and they were less likely to want to change. 

At 6 months, 83% of once-daily medications were taken per allocation in the bedtime group and 95% per allocation in the morning group, which was actually pretty good. For angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and calcium-channel blockers, the adherence was excellent. Again, it was beta-blockers taken twice a day where it fell down, and then also diuretics. But if you combine all diuretic medications (ie, pure diuretics and combo agents), still, 75% of them were successful at taking them at bedtime. Only 15% of people switching a diuretic to bedtime dosing actually had problems with nocturia. Most physicians think that they can’t get their patients to take those meds at bedtime, but you can. There’s probably no reason to take it at bedtime, but most people do tolerate it.

Ms. Ward: Is your advice to take it whenever you feel like? I know when TIME came out, Professor George Stergiou, who’s the incoming president of the International Society of Hypertension, said, well, maybe we should stick with the morning, because that’s what most of the trials did. 

Dr. Garrison: I think that›s a perfectly valid point of view, and maybe for a lot of people, that could be the default. There are some people, though, who will have a particular reason why one time is better. For instance, most people have no problems with calcium-channel blockers, but some get ankle swelling and you’re more likely to have that happen if you take them in the morning. Or lots of people want to take all their pills at the same time; blood pressure pills are easy ones to switch the timing of if you’re trying to accomplish that, and if that will help adherence. Basically, whatever time of day you can remember to take it the best is probably the right time.

Ms. Ward: Given where we are today, with your trials and TIME, do you think this is now settled science that it doesn’t make a difference?

Dr. Garrison: I’m probably the wrong person to ask, because I clearly have a bias. I think the methods in the TIME trial are really transparent and solid. I hope that when our papers come out, people will feel the same. You just have to look at the different trials. You need people like Dr. Stergiou to wade through the trials to help you with that.

Ms. Ward: Thank you very much for joining me today and discussing this trial.

Scott R. Garrison, MD, PhD, is Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and Staff Physician, Department of Family Medicine, Kaye Edmonton Clinic, and he has disclosed receiving research grants from Alberta Innovates (the Alberta Provincial Government) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (the Canadian Federal Government).

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Tricia Ward: I’m joined today by Dr. Scott R. Garrison, MD, PhD. He is a professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and director of the Pragmatic Trials Collaborative.

You presented two studies at ESC. One is the BedMed study, comparing day vs nighttime dosing of blood pressure therapy. Can you tell us the top-line findings? 
 

BedMed and BedMed-Frail

Dr. Garrison: We were looking to validate an earlier study that suggested a large benefit of taking blood pressure medication at bedtime, as far as reducing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). That was the MAPEC study. They suggested a 60% reduction. The BedMed trial was in hypertensive primary care patients in five Canadian provinces. We randomized well over 3000 patients to bedtime or morning medications. We looked at MACEs — so all-cause death or hospitalizations for acute coronary syndrome, stroke, or heart failure, and a bunch of safety outcomes.

Essentially, we found that it made absolutely no difference whatever time of day you took it in terms of MACEs and it didn’t make any difference to the adverse effects. It was safe to take it at bedtime. But it did not convey any extra cardiovascular benefit.

Ms. Ward: And then you did a second study, called BedMed-Frail. Do you want to tell us the reason you did that?

Dr. Garrison: BedMed-Frail took place in a nursing home population. We believed that it was possible that frail, older adults might have very different risks and benefits, and that they would probably be underrepresented, as they normally are in the main trial. 

We thought that because bedtime blood pressure medications would be theoretically preferentially lowering night pressure, which is already the lowest pressure of the day, that if you were at risk for hypotensive or ischemic adverse events, that might make it worse. We looked at falls and fractures; worsening cognition in case they had vascular dementia; and whether they developed decubitus ulcers (pressure sores) because you need a certain amount of pressure to get past any obstruction — in this case, it’s the weight of your body if you’re lying in bed all the time. 

We also looked at problem behaviors. People who have dementia have what’s called “sundowning,” where agitation and confusion are worse as the evening is going on. We looked at that on the off chance that it had anything to do with blood pressures being lower. And the BedMed-Frail results mirror those of BedMed exactly. So there was no cardiovascular benefit, and in this population, that was largely driven by mortality; one third of these people died every year. 

Ms. Ward: The median age was about 88?

Dr. Garrison: Yes, the median age was 88. There was no cardiovascular mortality advantage to bedtime dosing, but neither was there any signal of safety concerns. 
 

Other Complementary and Conflicting Studies

Ms. Ward: These two studies mirror the TIME study from the United Kingdom.

Dr. Garrison: Yes. We found exactly what TIME found. Our point estimate was pretty much the same. The hazard ratio in the main trial was 0.96. Theirs, I believe, was 0.95. Our findings agree completely with those of TIME and differ substantially from the previous trials that suggested a large benefit.

Ms. Ward: Those previous trials were MAPEC and the Hygia Chronotherapy Trial.

Dr. Garrison: MAPEC was the first one. While we were doing our trial, and while the TIME investigators were doing their trial, both of us trying to validate MAPEC, the same group published another study called Hygia, which also reported a large reduction: a 45% reduction in MACE with bedtime dosing.

Ms. Ward: You didn’t present it, but there was also a meta-analysis presented here by somebody independent.

Dr. Garrison: Yes, Ricky Turgeon. I know Ricky. We gave him patient-level data for his meta-analysis, but I was not otherwise involved. 

Ms. Ward: And the conclusion is the same.

Dr. Garrison: It’s the same. He only found the same five trials: MAPEC, Hygia, TIME, BedMed, and BedMed-Frail. Combining them all together, the CIs still span 1.0, so it didn’t end up being significant. But he also analyzed TIME and the BedMed trials separately — again suggesting that those trials showed no benefit.

Ms. Ward: There was a TIME substudy of night owls vs early risers or morning people, and there was a hint (or whatever you should say for a subanalysis of a neutral trial) that timing might make a difference there.

Dr. Garrison: They recently published, I guess it is a substudy, where they looked at people’s chronotype according to whether you consider yourself an early bird or a night owl. Their assessment was more detailed. They reported that if people were tending toward being early birds and they took their blood pressure medicine in the morning, or if they were night owls and they took it in the evening, that they tended to have statistically significantly better outcomes than the opposite timing. In that analysis, they were only looking at nonfatal myocardial infarction and nonfatal stroke. 

We did ask something that was related. We asked people: “Do we consider yourself more of an early bird or a night owl?” So we do have those data. For what I presented at ESC, we just looked at the primary outcome; we did subgroups according to early bird, night owl, and neither, and that was not statistically significant. It didn’t rule it out. There were some trends in the direction that the TIME group were suggesting. We do intend to do a closer look at that. 

But, you know, they call these “late-breaking trials,” and it really was in our case. We didn’t get the last of our data from the last province until the end of June, so we still are finishing up the analysis of the chronotype portion — so more to come in another month or so.
 

Do What You Like, or Stick to Morning Dosing?

Ms. Ward: For the purposes of people’s take-home message, does this mostly apply to once-daily–dosed antihypertensives?

Dr. Garrison: It was essentially once-daily medicines that were changed. The docs did have the opportunity to consolidate twice-daily meds into once-daily or switch to a different medication. That’s probably the area where adherence was the biggest issue, because it’s largely beta-blockers that were given twice daily at baseline, and they were less likely to want to change. 

At 6 months, 83% of once-daily medications were taken per allocation in the bedtime group and 95% per allocation in the morning group, which was actually pretty good. For angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and calcium-channel blockers, the adherence was excellent. Again, it was beta-blockers taken twice a day where it fell down, and then also diuretics. But if you combine all diuretic medications (ie, pure diuretics and combo agents), still, 75% of them were successful at taking them at bedtime. Only 15% of people switching a diuretic to bedtime dosing actually had problems with nocturia. Most physicians think that they can’t get their patients to take those meds at bedtime, but you can. There’s probably no reason to take it at bedtime, but most people do tolerate it.

Ms. Ward: Is your advice to take it whenever you feel like? I know when TIME came out, Professor George Stergiou, who’s the incoming president of the International Society of Hypertension, said, well, maybe we should stick with the morning, because that’s what most of the trials did. 

Dr. Garrison: I think that›s a perfectly valid point of view, and maybe for a lot of people, that could be the default. There are some people, though, who will have a particular reason why one time is better. For instance, most people have no problems with calcium-channel blockers, but some get ankle swelling and you’re more likely to have that happen if you take them in the morning. Or lots of people want to take all their pills at the same time; blood pressure pills are easy ones to switch the timing of if you’re trying to accomplish that, and if that will help adherence. Basically, whatever time of day you can remember to take it the best is probably the right time.

Ms. Ward: Given where we are today, with your trials and TIME, do you think this is now settled science that it doesn’t make a difference?

Dr. Garrison: I’m probably the wrong person to ask, because I clearly have a bias. I think the methods in the TIME trial are really transparent and solid. I hope that when our papers come out, people will feel the same. You just have to look at the different trials. You need people like Dr. Stergiou to wade through the trials to help you with that.

Ms. Ward: Thank you very much for joining me today and discussing this trial.

Scott R. Garrison, MD, PhD, is Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and Staff Physician, Department of Family Medicine, Kaye Edmonton Clinic, and he has disclosed receiving research grants from Alberta Innovates (the Alberta Provincial Government) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (the Canadian Federal Government).

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Tricia Ward: I’m joined today by Dr. Scott R. Garrison, MD, PhD. He is a professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and director of the Pragmatic Trials Collaborative.

You presented two studies at ESC. One is the BedMed study, comparing day vs nighttime dosing of blood pressure therapy. Can you tell us the top-line findings? 
 

BedMed and BedMed-Frail

Dr. Garrison: We were looking to validate an earlier study that suggested a large benefit of taking blood pressure medication at bedtime, as far as reducing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). That was the MAPEC study. They suggested a 60% reduction. The BedMed trial was in hypertensive primary care patients in five Canadian provinces. We randomized well over 3000 patients to bedtime or morning medications. We looked at MACEs — so all-cause death or hospitalizations for acute coronary syndrome, stroke, or heart failure, and a bunch of safety outcomes.

Essentially, we found that it made absolutely no difference whatever time of day you took it in terms of MACEs and it didn’t make any difference to the adverse effects. It was safe to take it at bedtime. But it did not convey any extra cardiovascular benefit.

Ms. Ward: And then you did a second study, called BedMed-Frail. Do you want to tell us the reason you did that?

Dr. Garrison: BedMed-Frail took place in a nursing home population. We believed that it was possible that frail, older adults might have very different risks and benefits, and that they would probably be underrepresented, as they normally are in the main trial. 

We thought that because bedtime blood pressure medications would be theoretically preferentially lowering night pressure, which is already the lowest pressure of the day, that if you were at risk for hypotensive or ischemic adverse events, that might make it worse. We looked at falls and fractures; worsening cognition in case they had vascular dementia; and whether they developed decubitus ulcers (pressure sores) because you need a certain amount of pressure to get past any obstruction — in this case, it’s the weight of your body if you’re lying in bed all the time. 

We also looked at problem behaviors. People who have dementia have what’s called “sundowning,” where agitation and confusion are worse as the evening is going on. We looked at that on the off chance that it had anything to do with blood pressures being lower. And the BedMed-Frail results mirror those of BedMed exactly. So there was no cardiovascular benefit, and in this population, that was largely driven by mortality; one third of these people died every year. 

Ms. Ward: The median age was about 88?

Dr. Garrison: Yes, the median age was 88. There was no cardiovascular mortality advantage to bedtime dosing, but neither was there any signal of safety concerns. 
 

Other Complementary and Conflicting Studies

Ms. Ward: These two studies mirror the TIME study from the United Kingdom.

Dr. Garrison: Yes. We found exactly what TIME found. Our point estimate was pretty much the same. The hazard ratio in the main trial was 0.96. Theirs, I believe, was 0.95. Our findings agree completely with those of TIME and differ substantially from the previous trials that suggested a large benefit.

Ms. Ward: Those previous trials were MAPEC and the Hygia Chronotherapy Trial.

Dr. Garrison: MAPEC was the first one. While we were doing our trial, and while the TIME investigators were doing their trial, both of us trying to validate MAPEC, the same group published another study called Hygia, which also reported a large reduction: a 45% reduction in MACE with bedtime dosing.

Ms. Ward: You didn’t present it, but there was also a meta-analysis presented here by somebody independent.

Dr. Garrison: Yes, Ricky Turgeon. I know Ricky. We gave him patient-level data for his meta-analysis, but I was not otherwise involved. 

Ms. Ward: And the conclusion is the same.

Dr. Garrison: It’s the same. He only found the same five trials: MAPEC, Hygia, TIME, BedMed, and BedMed-Frail. Combining them all together, the CIs still span 1.0, so it didn’t end up being significant. But he also analyzed TIME and the BedMed trials separately — again suggesting that those trials showed no benefit.

Ms. Ward: There was a TIME substudy of night owls vs early risers or morning people, and there was a hint (or whatever you should say for a subanalysis of a neutral trial) that timing might make a difference there.

Dr. Garrison: They recently published, I guess it is a substudy, where they looked at people’s chronotype according to whether you consider yourself an early bird or a night owl. Their assessment was more detailed. They reported that if people were tending toward being early birds and they took their blood pressure medicine in the morning, or if they were night owls and they took it in the evening, that they tended to have statistically significantly better outcomes than the opposite timing. In that analysis, they were only looking at nonfatal myocardial infarction and nonfatal stroke. 

We did ask something that was related. We asked people: “Do we consider yourself more of an early bird or a night owl?” So we do have those data. For what I presented at ESC, we just looked at the primary outcome; we did subgroups according to early bird, night owl, and neither, and that was not statistically significant. It didn’t rule it out. There were some trends in the direction that the TIME group were suggesting. We do intend to do a closer look at that. 

But, you know, they call these “late-breaking trials,” and it really was in our case. We didn’t get the last of our data from the last province until the end of June, so we still are finishing up the analysis of the chronotype portion — so more to come in another month or so.
 

Do What You Like, or Stick to Morning Dosing?

Ms. Ward: For the purposes of people’s take-home message, does this mostly apply to once-daily–dosed antihypertensives?

Dr. Garrison: It was essentially once-daily medicines that were changed. The docs did have the opportunity to consolidate twice-daily meds into once-daily or switch to a different medication. That’s probably the area where adherence was the biggest issue, because it’s largely beta-blockers that were given twice daily at baseline, and they were less likely to want to change. 

At 6 months, 83% of once-daily medications were taken per allocation in the bedtime group and 95% per allocation in the morning group, which was actually pretty good. For angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and calcium-channel blockers, the adherence was excellent. Again, it was beta-blockers taken twice a day where it fell down, and then also diuretics. But if you combine all diuretic medications (ie, pure diuretics and combo agents), still, 75% of them were successful at taking them at bedtime. Only 15% of people switching a diuretic to bedtime dosing actually had problems with nocturia. Most physicians think that they can’t get their patients to take those meds at bedtime, but you can. There’s probably no reason to take it at bedtime, but most people do tolerate it.

Ms. Ward: Is your advice to take it whenever you feel like? I know when TIME came out, Professor George Stergiou, who’s the incoming president of the International Society of Hypertension, said, well, maybe we should stick with the morning, because that’s what most of the trials did. 

Dr. Garrison: I think that›s a perfectly valid point of view, and maybe for a lot of people, that could be the default. There are some people, though, who will have a particular reason why one time is better. For instance, most people have no problems with calcium-channel blockers, but some get ankle swelling and you’re more likely to have that happen if you take them in the morning. Or lots of people want to take all their pills at the same time; blood pressure pills are easy ones to switch the timing of if you’re trying to accomplish that, and if that will help adherence. Basically, whatever time of day you can remember to take it the best is probably the right time.

Ms. Ward: Given where we are today, with your trials and TIME, do you think this is now settled science that it doesn’t make a difference?

Dr. Garrison: I’m probably the wrong person to ask, because I clearly have a bias. I think the methods in the TIME trial are really transparent and solid. I hope that when our papers come out, people will feel the same. You just have to look at the different trials. You need people like Dr. Stergiou to wade through the trials to help you with that.

Ms. Ward: Thank you very much for joining me today and discussing this trial.

Scott R. Garrison, MD, PhD, is Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and Staff Physician, Department of Family Medicine, Kaye Edmonton Clinic, and he has disclosed receiving research grants from Alberta Innovates (the Alberta Provincial Government) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (the Canadian Federal Government).

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

This discussion was recorded on August 2, 2024. This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Today, we’ll be discussing the results of a new study published in The Journal of Emergency Medicine, looking at the incidence of delayed intracranial hemorrhage among older patients taking preinjury anticoagulants who present to the emergency department (ED) with blunt head trauma.

Joining me today is the lead author of the study, Dr. Richard Shih, professor of emergency medicine at Florida Atlantic University. Also joining me is Dr. Christina Shenvi, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of North Carolina (UNC) Chapel Hill, with fellowship training in geriatric emergency medicine. 

Welcome to both of you.

Richard D. Shih, MD: Thanks, Rob. 

Christina L. Shenvi, MD, PhD, MBA: Thanks. Pleasure to be here. 
 

ICH Study Methodology

Dr. Glatter: It’s a pleasure to have you. Rich, this is a great study and targeted toward a population we see daily in the emergency department. I want you to describe your methodology, patient selection, and how you went about organizing your study to look at this important finding of delayed intracranial hemorrhage, especially in those on anticoagulants.

Dr. Shih: This all started for our research team when we first read the 2012 Annals of Emergency Medicine paper. The first author was Vincenzo Menditto, and he looked at a group of patients that had minor head injury, were anticoagulated, and had negative initial head CTs. 

There were about 100 patients, of which about 10 of them did not consent, but they hospitalized all these patients. These were anticoagulated, negative-first head CTs. They hospitalized the patients and then did a routine second CT at about 24 hours. They also followed them for a week, and it turned out a little over 7% of them had delayed head CT. 

We were wondering how many delayed intracranial hemorrhages we had missed because current practice for us was that, if patients had a good physical exam, their head CT was normal, and everything looked good, we would send them home.

Because of that, a number of people across the country wanted to verify those findings from the Menditto study. We tried to design a good study to answer that question. We happen to have a very large geriatric population in Florida, and our ED census is very high for age over 65, at nearly 60%. 

There are two Level I trauma centers in Palm Beach County. We included a second multicenter hospital, and we prospectively enrolled patients. We know the current state of practice is not to routinely do second CTs, so we followed these patients over time and followed their medical records to try to identify delayed bleeding. That’s how we set up our methodology.
 

Is It Safe to Discharge Patients With Trauma After 24 Hours?

Dr. Glatter: For the bulk of these patients with negative head CTs, it’s been my practice that when they’re stable and they look fine and there’s no other apparent, distracting painful trauma, injuries and so forth, they’re safe to discharge. 

The secondary outcome in your study is interesting: the need for neurosurgical intervention in terms of those with delayed intracranial hemorrhage.

Dr. Shih: I do believe that it’s certainly not the problem that Menditto described, which is 7%. There are two other prospective studies that have looked at this issue with delayed bleeding on anticoagulants. Both of these also showed a relatively low rate of delayed bleeding, which is between like 0.2% and 1.0%. In our study, it was 0.4%. 

The difference in the studies is that Menditto and colleagues routinely did 24-hour head CTs. They admitted everybody. For these other studies, routine head CT was not part of it. My bet is that there is a rate of delayed bleeding somewhere in between that seen in the Menditto study and that in all the other studies.

However, talking about significant intracranial hemorrhage, ones that perhaps need neurosurgery, I believe most of them are not significant. There’s some number that do occur, but the vast majority of those probably don’t need neurosurgery. We had 14 delayed bleeds out of 6000 patients with head trauma. One of them ended up requiring neurosurgery, so the answer is not zero, but I don’t think it’s 7% either. 

Dr. Glatter: Dr. Shenvi, I want to bring you into the conversation to talk about your experience at UNC, and how you run things in terms of older patients with blunt head trauma on preinjury anticoagulants.

Dr. Shenvi: Thanks, Rob. I remember when this paper came out showing this 7% rate of delayed bleeding and the question was, “Should we be admitting all these people?” Partly just from an overwhelming need for capacity that that would bring, it just wasn’t practical to say, “We’re going to admit every patient with a negative head CT to the hospital and rescan them.” That would be hundreds or thousands of patients each year in any given facility. 

The other thing is that delayed bleeds don’t always happen just in the first 24 hours. It’s not even a matter of bringing patients into observation for 24 hours, watching them, and rescanning them if they have symptoms. It can occur several days out. That never, in almost any institution that I know of, became standard practice. 

The way that it did change my care was to give good return precautions to patients, to make sure they have somebody with them to say, “Hey, sometimes you can have bleeding several days out after a fall, even though your CT scan here today looks perfect,” and to alert them that if they start having severe headaches, vomiting, or other symptoms of intracranial hemorrhage, that they should come back. 

I don’t think it ever became standard practice, and for good reason, because that was one study. The subsequent studies that Richard mentioned, pretty quickly on the heels of that initial one, showed a much lower rate of delayed ICH with the caveats that the methodology was different. 
 

Shift in Anticoagulants

Dr. Shenvi: One other big change from that original study, and now to Richard’s study, is the shift in anticoagulants. Back in the initial study you mentioned, it was all warfarin. We know from other studies looking at warfarin vs the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) that DOACs have lower rates of ICH after a head injury, lower rates of need for neurosurgical intervention, and lower rates of discharge to a skilled nursing facility after an intracranial hemorrhage.

Across the board, we know that the DOACs tend to do better. It’s difficult to compare newer studies because it’s a different medication. It did inform my practice to have an awareness of delayed intracranial hemorrhage so that I warn patients more proactively. 

Dr. Glatter: I haven’t seen a patient on warfarin in years. I don’t know if either of you have, but it’s all DOACs now unless there’s some other reason. That shift is quite apparent.

Dr. Shih: The problem with looking at delayed bleeding for DOACs vs warfarin is the numbers were so low. I think we had 13 people, and seven were in the no-anticoagulant group. The numbers are even lower, so it’s hard to say. 

I just wanted to comment on something that Dr. Shenvi said, and I pretty much agree with everything that she said. Anticoagulants and warfarin, and that Menditto study, have a carryover effect. People group DOACs with warfarin similarly. When a patient is brought in, the first thing they talk about with head trauma is, “Oh, they’re on an anticoagulant” or “They’re not on an anticoagulant.” It’s so ingrained.

I believe that, in emergency medicine, we’re pressed for space and time and we’re not as affected by that 24-hour observation. Maybe many of our surgeons will automatically admit those patients. 

I haven’t seen a guideline from the United States, but there are two international guidelines. One is from Austria from 2019, and one is from Scandinavia. Both recommended 24-hour observation if you’re on an anticoagulant.

There is a bit of controversy left over with that. Hopefully, as more and more of information, like in our study, comes out, people will be a little bit more clear about it. I don’t think there’s a need to routinely admit them. 

I do want to mention that the Menditto study had such a massive impact on everybody. They pointed out one subgroup (and it’s such a small number of patients). They had seven cases of delayed bleeding; four or five of them were within that 24 hours, and a couple were diagnosed later over the next couple days.

Of those seven people, four of them had international normalized ratios (INRs) greater than 3. Of those four patients, I’ve heard people talk about this and recommend, “Okay, that’s the subgroup I would admit.” There’s a toss-up with what to do with DOAC because it’s very hard to tell whether there’s an issue, whether there are problems with their dosing, and whatever. 

We actually recently looked at that. We have a much larger sample than four: close to 300 patients who were on warfarin. We looked at patients who had INRs below 3 and above 3, and we didn’t show a difference. We still don’t believe that warfarin is a big issue with delayed bleeding.
 

Should We Be Asking: ‘Are They on Blood Thinners?’

Dr. Shenvi: One of the interesting trends related to warfarin and the DOACs vs no anticoagulant is that as you mentioned, Dr Shih, the first question out of people’s mouths or the first piece of information emergency medical services gives you when they come in with a patient who’s had a head injury is, “Are they on blood thinners or not?”

Yet, the paradigm is shifting to say it’s not actually the blood thinners themselves that are giving older patients the higher risk for bleeding; it’s age and other comorbidities.

Certainly, if you’re on an anticoagulant and you start to bleed, your prognosis is much worse because the bleeding doesn’t stop. In terms of who has a bleeding event, there’s much less impact of anticoagulation than we used to think. That, in part, may be due to the change from warfarin to other medications.

Some of the experts I’ve talked to who have done the research on this have said, “Well, actually, warfarin was more of a marker for being much older and more frail, because it was primarily prescribed to older patients who have significant heart disease, atrial fibrillation, and so on.” It was more a marker for somebody who is at risk for an intracranial hemorrhage. There are many changes that have happened in the past 10 years with medications and also our understanding. 
 

Challenges in Patient Follow-up

Dr. Glatter: That’s a great point. One thing, Rich, I want to ask you about is in terms of your proxy outcome assessment. When you use that at 14 and 60 days with telephone follow-up and then chart review at 60 and 90 days (because, obviously, everyone can’t get another head CT or it’s difficult to follow patients up), did you find that worked out well in your prospective cohort study, in terms of using that as a proxy, so to speak? 

Dr. Shih: I would say to a certain extent. Unfortunately, we don’t have access to the patients to come back to follow up all of them, and there was obviously a large number of patients in our study. 

The next best thing was that we had dedicated research assistants calling all of the patients at 14 days and 60 days. I’ve certainly read research studies where, when they call them, they get 80%-90% follow-up, but we did not achieve that.

I don’t know if people are more inundated with spam phone calls now, or the older people are just afraid of picking up their phone sometimes with all the scams and so forth. I totally understand, but in all honesty, we only had about a 30%-35% follow-up using that follow-up pathway. 

Then the proxy pathway was to look at their charts at 60 and 90 days. Also, we looked at the Florida death registry, which is pretty good, and then finally, we had both Level I trauma centers in the county that we were in participating. It’s standard practice that if you have an intracranial hemorrhage at a non–Level I trauma center, you would be transferred to a Level I trauma center. That’s the protocol. I know that’s not followed 100% of the time, but that’s part of the proxy follow-up. You could criticize the study for not having closer to 90% actual contact, but that’s the best we could do. 

Dr. Glatter: I think that’s admirable. Using that paradigm of what you described certainly allows the reader to understand the difficulty in assessing patients that don’t get follow-up head CT, and hardly anyone does that, as we know.

To your point of having both Level I trauma centers in the county, that makes it pretty secure. If we’re going to do a study encompassing a similar type of regional aspect, it would be similar.

Dr. Shenvi: I think your proxies, to your credit, were as good as you can get. You can never get a 100% follow-up, but you really looked at all the different avenues by which patients might present, either in the death registry or a Level I center. Well done on that aspect.

 

Determining When to Admit Patients for Observation

Dr. Glatter: In terms of admissions: You admit a patient, then you hear back that this patient should not have been admitted because they had a negative head CT, but you put them in anyway in the sense of delayed bleeding happening or not happening.

It’s interesting. Maybe the insurers will start looking at this in some capacity, based on your study, that because it’s so infrequent that you see delayed bleeding, that admitting someone for any reason whatsoever would be declined. Do you see that being an issue? In other words, [do you see] this leading to a pattern in terms of the payers?

Dr. Shih: Certainly, you could interpret it that way, and that would be unfortunate. The [incidence of] delayed bleeding is definitely not zero. That’s the first thing. 

The second thing is that when you’re dealing with an older population, having some sense that they’re not doing well is an important contributor to trying to fully assess what’s going on — whether or not they have a bleed or whether they’re at risk for falling again and then hitting their head and causing a second bleed, and making sure they can do the activities of daily life. There really should be some room for a physician to say, “They just got here, and we don’t know him that well. There’s something that bothers me about this person” and have the ability to watch them for at least another 24 hours. That’s how I feel. 

Dr. Shenvi: In my location, it would be difficult to try to admit somebody purely for observation for delayed bleeding. I think we would get a lot of pushback on that. The reasons I might admit a patient after a fall with a negative head CT, though, are all the things that, Rob, you alluded to earlier — which are, what made them fall in the first place and were they unable to get up? 

I had this happen just this week. A patient who fell couldn’t get off the ground for 12 hours, and so now she’s dehydrated and delirious with slight rhabdomyolysis. Then you’re admitting them either for the sequelae of the fall that are not related to the intracranial hemorrhage, or the fact that they are so debilitated and deconditioned that they cannot take care of themselves. They need physical therapy. Often, we will have physical and occupational therapists come see them in the ED during business hours and help make an assessment of whether they are safe to go home or whether they fall again. That can give more evidence for the need for admission.

Dr. Glatter: To bring artificial intelligence into this discussion, algorithms that are out there that say, “Push a button and the patient’s safe for discharge.” Well, this argues for a clinical gestalt and a human being to make an assessment because you can use these predictive models, which are coming and they’re going to be here soon, and they already are in some sense. Again, we have to use clinical human judgment. 

Dr. Shih: I agree. 
 

Advice for Primary Care Physicians

Dr. Glatter: What return precautions do you discuss with patients who’ve had blunt head trauma that maybe had a head CT, or even didn’t? What are the main things we’re looking for?

Dr. Shenvi: What I usually tell people is if you start to have a worse headache, nausea or vomiting, any weakness in one area of your body, or vision changes, and if there’s a family member or friend there, I’ll say, “If you notice that they’re acting differently or seem confused, come back.”

Dr. Shih: I agree with what she said, and I’m also going to add one thing. The most important part is they are trying to prevent a subsequent fall. We know that when they’ve fallen and they present to the ED, they’re at even higher risk for falling and reinjuring themselves, and that’s a population that’s already at risk.

One of the secondary studies that we published out of this project was looking at follow-up with their primary care physicians, and there were two things that we wanted to address. The first was, how often did they do it? Then, when they did do it, did their primary care physicians try to address and prevent subsequent falls?

Both the answers are actually bad. Amazingly, just over like 60% followed up. 

In some of our subsequent research, because we’re in the midst of a randomized, controlled trial where we do a home visit, when we initially see these individuals that have fallen, they’ll schedule a home visit for us. Then a week or two later, when we schedule the home visit, many of them cancel because they think, Oh, that was a one-off and it’s not going to happen again. Part of the problem is the patients, because many of them believe that they just slipped and fell and it’s not going to happen again, or they’re not prone to it.

The second issue was when patients did go to a primary care physician, we have found that some primary care physicians believe that falling and injuring themselves is just part of the normal aging process. A percentage of them don’t go over assessment for fall risk or even initiate fall prevention treatments or programs. 

I try to take that time to tell them that this is very common in their age group, and believe it or not, a fall from standing is the way people really injure themselves, and there may be ways to prevent subsequent falls and injuries. 

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. Do you find that their medications are a contributor in some sense? Say they’re antihypertensive, have issues of orthostasis, or a new medication was added in the last week. 

Dr. Shenvi: It’s all of the above. Sometimes it’s one thing, like they just started tamsulosin for their kidney stone, they stood up, they felt lightheaded, and they fell. Usually, it’s multifactorial with some changes in their gait, vision, balance, reflex time, and strength, plus the medications or the need for assistive devices. Maybe they can’t take care of their home as well as they used to and there are things on the floor. It’s really all of the above.
 

‘Harder to Unlearn Something Than to Learn It’

Dr. Glatter: Would either of you like to add any additional points to the discussion or add a few pearls? 

Dr. Shenvi: This just highlights the challenge of how it’s harder to unlearn something than to learn it, where one study that maybe wasn’t quite looking at what we needed to, or practice and prescribing patterns have changed, so it’s no longer really relevant. 

The things that we learned from that, or the fears that we instilled in our minds of, Uh oh, they could go home and have delayed bleeding, are much harder to unlearn, and it takes more studies to unlearn that idea than it did to actually put it into place. 

I’m glad that your team has done this much larger, prospective study and hopefully will reduce the concern about this entity. 

Dr. Shih: I appreciate that segue. It is amazing that, for paramedics and medical students, the first thing out of their mouth is, “Are they on an anticoagulant?”

In terms of the risk of developing an intracranial hemorrhage, I think it’s much less than the weight we’ve put on it before. However, I believe if they have a bleed, the bleeds are worse. It’s kind of a double-edged sword. It’s still an important factor, but it doesn’t come with the Oh my gosh, they’re on an anticoagulant that everybody thinks about.
 

No. 1 Cause of Traumatic Injury Is a Fall from Standing

Dr. Glatter: These are obviously ground-level falls in most patients and not motor vehicle crashes. That’s an important part in the population that you looked at that should be mentioned clearly. 

Dr. Shih: It’s astonishing. I’ve been a program director for over 20 years, and geriatrics is not well taught in the curriculum. It’s astonishing for many of our trainees and emergency physicians in general that the number-one cause for traumatic injury is a fall from standing.

Certainly, we get patients coming in the trauma center like a 95-year-old person who’s on a ladder putting up his Christmas lights. I’m like, oh my God. 

For the vast majority, it’s closer to 90%, but in our study, for the patients we looked at, it was 80% that fall from standing. That’s the mechanism that causes these bleeds and these major injuries. 

Dr. Shenvi: That’s reflective of what we see, so it’s good that that’s what you looked at also. 

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. Well, thank you both. This has been a very informative discussion. I appreciate your time, and our readers will certainly benefit from your knowledge and expertise. Thank you again.

Dr. Glatter, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, is a medical adviser for this news organization. He disclosed having no relevant financial conflicts. Dr. Shih is professor of emergency medicine at the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. His current grant funding and area of research interest involves geriatric emergency department patients with head injury and fall-related injury. He disclosed receiving a research grant from The Florida Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association Grant for Safety of Health Care Services). Dr. Shenvi, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, disclosed ties with the American College of Emergency Physicians, Institute for Healthcare Improvement, AstraZeneca, and CurvaFix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on August 2, 2024. This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Today, we’ll be discussing the results of a new study published in The Journal of Emergency Medicine, looking at the incidence of delayed intracranial hemorrhage among older patients taking preinjury anticoagulants who present to the emergency department (ED) with blunt head trauma.

Joining me today is the lead author of the study, Dr. Richard Shih, professor of emergency medicine at Florida Atlantic University. Also joining me is Dr. Christina Shenvi, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of North Carolina (UNC) Chapel Hill, with fellowship training in geriatric emergency medicine. 

Welcome to both of you.

Richard D. Shih, MD: Thanks, Rob. 

Christina L. Shenvi, MD, PhD, MBA: Thanks. Pleasure to be here. 
 

ICH Study Methodology

Dr. Glatter: It’s a pleasure to have you. Rich, this is a great study and targeted toward a population we see daily in the emergency department. I want you to describe your methodology, patient selection, and how you went about organizing your study to look at this important finding of delayed intracranial hemorrhage, especially in those on anticoagulants.

Dr. Shih: This all started for our research team when we first read the 2012 Annals of Emergency Medicine paper. The first author was Vincenzo Menditto, and he looked at a group of patients that had minor head injury, were anticoagulated, and had negative initial head CTs. 

There were about 100 patients, of which about 10 of them did not consent, but they hospitalized all these patients. These were anticoagulated, negative-first head CTs. They hospitalized the patients and then did a routine second CT at about 24 hours. They also followed them for a week, and it turned out a little over 7% of them had delayed head CT. 

We were wondering how many delayed intracranial hemorrhages we had missed because current practice for us was that, if patients had a good physical exam, their head CT was normal, and everything looked good, we would send them home.

Because of that, a number of people across the country wanted to verify those findings from the Menditto study. We tried to design a good study to answer that question. We happen to have a very large geriatric population in Florida, and our ED census is very high for age over 65, at nearly 60%. 

There are two Level I trauma centers in Palm Beach County. We included a second multicenter hospital, and we prospectively enrolled patients. We know the current state of practice is not to routinely do second CTs, so we followed these patients over time and followed their medical records to try to identify delayed bleeding. That’s how we set up our methodology.
 

Is It Safe to Discharge Patients With Trauma After 24 Hours?

Dr. Glatter: For the bulk of these patients with negative head CTs, it’s been my practice that when they’re stable and they look fine and there’s no other apparent, distracting painful trauma, injuries and so forth, they’re safe to discharge. 

The secondary outcome in your study is interesting: the need for neurosurgical intervention in terms of those with delayed intracranial hemorrhage.

Dr. Shih: I do believe that it’s certainly not the problem that Menditto described, which is 7%. There are two other prospective studies that have looked at this issue with delayed bleeding on anticoagulants. Both of these also showed a relatively low rate of delayed bleeding, which is between like 0.2% and 1.0%. In our study, it was 0.4%. 

The difference in the studies is that Menditto and colleagues routinely did 24-hour head CTs. They admitted everybody. For these other studies, routine head CT was not part of it. My bet is that there is a rate of delayed bleeding somewhere in between that seen in the Menditto study and that in all the other studies.

However, talking about significant intracranial hemorrhage, ones that perhaps need neurosurgery, I believe most of them are not significant. There’s some number that do occur, but the vast majority of those probably don’t need neurosurgery. We had 14 delayed bleeds out of 6000 patients with head trauma. One of them ended up requiring neurosurgery, so the answer is not zero, but I don’t think it’s 7% either. 

Dr. Glatter: Dr. Shenvi, I want to bring you into the conversation to talk about your experience at UNC, and how you run things in terms of older patients with blunt head trauma on preinjury anticoagulants.

Dr. Shenvi: Thanks, Rob. I remember when this paper came out showing this 7% rate of delayed bleeding and the question was, “Should we be admitting all these people?” Partly just from an overwhelming need for capacity that that would bring, it just wasn’t practical to say, “We’re going to admit every patient with a negative head CT to the hospital and rescan them.” That would be hundreds or thousands of patients each year in any given facility. 

The other thing is that delayed bleeds don’t always happen just in the first 24 hours. It’s not even a matter of bringing patients into observation for 24 hours, watching them, and rescanning them if they have symptoms. It can occur several days out. That never, in almost any institution that I know of, became standard practice. 

The way that it did change my care was to give good return precautions to patients, to make sure they have somebody with them to say, “Hey, sometimes you can have bleeding several days out after a fall, even though your CT scan here today looks perfect,” and to alert them that if they start having severe headaches, vomiting, or other symptoms of intracranial hemorrhage, that they should come back. 

I don’t think it ever became standard practice, and for good reason, because that was one study. The subsequent studies that Richard mentioned, pretty quickly on the heels of that initial one, showed a much lower rate of delayed ICH with the caveats that the methodology was different. 
 

Shift in Anticoagulants

Dr. Shenvi: One other big change from that original study, and now to Richard’s study, is the shift in anticoagulants. Back in the initial study you mentioned, it was all warfarin. We know from other studies looking at warfarin vs the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) that DOACs have lower rates of ICH after a head injury, lower rates of need for neurosurgical intervention, and lower rates of discharge to a skilled nursing facility after an intracranial hemorrhage.

Across the board, we know that the DOACs tend to do better. It’s difficult to compare newer studies because it’s a different medication. It did inform my practice to have an awareness of delayed intracranial hemorrhage so that I warn patients more proactively. 

Dr. Glatter: I haven’t seen a patient on warfarin in years. I don’t know if either of you have, but it’s all DOACs now unless there’s some other reason. That shift is quite apparent.

Dr. Shih: The problem with looking at delayed bleeding for DOACs vs warfarin is the numbers were so low. I think we had 13 people, and seven were in the no-anticoagulant group. The numbers are even lower, so it’s hard to say. 

I just wanted to comment on something that Dr. Shenvi said, and I pretty much agree with everything that she said. Anticoagulants and warfarin, and that Menditto study, have a carryover effect. People group DOACs with warfarin similarly. When a patient is brought in, the first thing they talk about with head trauma is, “Oh, they’re on an anticoagulant” or “They’re not on an anticoagulant.” It’s so ingrained.

I believe that, in emergency medicine, we’re pressed for space and time and we’re not as affected by that 24-hour observation. Maybe many of our surgeons will automatically admit those patients. 

I haven’t seen a guideline from the United States, but there are two international guidelines. One is from Austria from 2019, and one is from Scandinavia. Both recommended 24-hour observation if you’re on an anticoagulant.

There is a bit of controversy left over with that. Hopefully, as more and more of information, like in our study, comes out, people will be a little bit more clear about it. I don’t think there’s a need to routinely admit them. 

I do want to mention that the Menditto study had such a massive impact on everybody. They pointed out one subgroup (and it’s such a small number of patients). They had seven cases of delayed bleeding; four or five of them were within that 24 hours, and a couple were diagnosed later over the next couple days.

Of those seven people, four of them had international normalized ratios (INRs) greater than 3. Of those four patients, I’ve heard people talk about this and recommend, “Okay, that’s the subgroup I would admit.” There’s a toss-up with what to do with DOAC because it’s very hard to tell whether there’s an issue, whether there are problems with their dosing, and whatever. 

We actually recently looked at that. We have a much larger sample than four: close to 300 patients who were on warfarin. We looked at patients who had INRs below 3 and above 3, and we didn’t show a difference. We still don’t believe that warfarin is a big issue with delayed bleeding.
 

Should We Be Asking: ‘Are They on Blood Thinners?’

Dr. Shenvi: One of the interesting trends related to warfarin and the DOACs vs no anticoagulant is that as you mentioned, Dr Shih, the first question out of people’s mouths or the first piece of information emergency medical services gives you when they come in with a patient who’s had a head injury is, “Are they on blood thinners or not?”

Yet, the paradigm is shifting to say it’s not actually the blood thinners themselves that are giving older patients the higher risk for bleeding; it’s age and other comorbidities.

Certainly, if you’re on an anticoagulant and you start to bleed, your prognosis is much worse because the bleeding doesn’t stop. In terms of who has a bleeding event, there’s much less impact of anticoagulation than we used to think. That, in part, may be due to the change from warfarin to other medications.

Some of the experts I’ve talked to who have done the research on this have said, “Well, actually, warfarin was more of a marker for being much older and more frail, because it was primarily prescribed to older patients who have significant heart disease, atrial fibrillation, and so on.” It was more a marker for somebody who is at risk for an intracranial hemorrhage. There are many changes that have happened in the past 10 years with medications and also our understanding. 
 

Challenges in Patient Follow-up

Dr. Glatter: That’s a great point. One thing, Rich, I want to ask you about is in terms of your proxy outcome assessment. When you use that at 14 and 60 days with telephone follow-up and then chart review at 60 and 90 days (because, obviously, everyone can’t get another head CT or it’s difficult to follow patients up), did you find that worked out well in your prospective cohort study, in terms of using that as a proxy, so to speak? 

Dr. Shih: I would say to a certain extent. Unfortunately, we don’t have access to the patients to come back to follow up all of them, and there was obviously a large number of patients in our study. 

The next best thing was that we had dedicated research assistants calling all of the patients at 14 days and 60 days. I’ve certainly read research studies where, when they call them, they get 80%-90% follow-up, but we did not achieve that.

I don’t know if people are more inundated with spam phone calls now, or the older people are just afraid of picking up their phone sometimes with all the scams and so forth. I totally understand, but in all honesty, we only had about a 30%-35% follow-up using that follow-up pathway. 

Then the proxy pathway was to look at their charts at 60 and 90 days. Also, we looked at the Florida death registry, which is pretty good, and then finally, we had both Level I trauma centers in the county that we were in participating. It’s standard practice that if you have an intracranial hemorrhage at a non–Level I trauma center, you would be transferred to a Level I trauma center. That’s the protocol. I know that’s not followed 100% of the time, but that’s part of the proxy follow-up. You could criticize the study for not having closer to 90% actual contact, but that’s the best we could do. 

Dr. Glatter: I think that’s admirable. Using that paradigm of what you described certainly allows the reader to understand the difficulty in assessing patients that don’t get follow-up head CT, and hardly anyone does that, as we know.

To your point of having both Level I trauma centers in the county, that makes it pretty secure. If we’re going to do a study encompassing a similar type of regional aspect, it would be similar.

Dr. Shenvi: I think your proxies, to your credit, were as good as you can get. You can never get a 100% follow-up, but you really looked at all the different avenues by which patients might present, either in the death registry or a Level I center. Well done on that aspect.

 

Determining When to Admit Patients for Observation

Dr. Glatter: In terms of admissions: You admit a patient, then you hear back that this patient should not have been admitted because they had a negative head CT, but you put them in anyway in the sense of delayed bleeding happening or not happening.

It’s interesting. Maybe the insurers will start looking at this in some capacity, based on your study, that because it’s so infrequent that you see delayed bleeding, that admitting someone for any reason whatsoever would be declined. Do you see that being an issue? In other words, [do you see] this leading to a pattern in terms of the payers?

Dr. Shih: Certainly, you could interpret it that way, and that would be unfortunate. The [incidence of] delayed bleeding is definitely not zero. That’s the first thing. 

The second thing is that when you’re dealing with an older population, having some sense that they’re not doing well is an important contributor to trying to fully assess what’s going on — whether or not they have a bleed or whether they’re at risk for falling again and then hitting their head and causing a second bleed, and making sure they can do the activities of daily life. There really should be some room for a physician to say, “They just got here, and we don’t know him that well. There’s something that bothers me about this person” and have the ability to watch them for at least another 24 hours. That’s how I feel. 

Dr. Shenvi: In my location, it would be difficult to try to admit somebody purely for observation for delayed bleeding. I think we would get a lot of pushback on that. The reasons I might admit a patient after a fall with a negative head CT, though, are all the things that, Rob, you alluded to earlier — which are, what made them fall in the first place and were they unable to get up? 

I had this happen just this week. A patient who fell couldn’t get off the ground for 12 hours, and so now she’s dehydrated and delirious with slight rhabdomyolysis. Then you’re admitting them either for the sequelae of the fall that are not related to the intracranial hemorrhage, or the fact that they are so debilitated and deconditioned that they cannot take care of themselves. They need physical therapy. Often, we will have physical and occupational therapists come see them in the ED during business hours and help make an assessment of whether they are safe to go home or whether they fall again. That can give more evidence for the need for admission.

Dr. Glatter: To bring artificial intelligence into this discussion, algorithms that are out there that say, “Push a button and the patient’s safe for discharge.” Well, this argues for a clinical gestalt and a human being to make an assessment because you can use these predictive models, which are coming and they’re going to be here soon, and they already are in some sense. Again, we have to use clinical human judgment. 

Dr. Shih: I agree. 
 

Advice for Primary Care Physicians

Dr. Glatter: What return precautions do you discuss with patients who’ve had blunt head trauma that maybe had a head CT, or even didn’t? What are the main things we’re looking for?

Dr. Shenvi: What I usually tell people is if you start to have a worse headache, nausea or vomiting, any weakness in one area of your body, or vision changes, and if there’s a family member or friend there, I’ll say, “If you notice that they’re acting differently or seem confused, come back.”

Dr. Shih: I agree with what she said, and I’m also going to add one thing. The most important part is they are trying to prevent a subsequent fall. We know that when they’ve fallen and they present to the ED, they’re at even higher risk for falling and reinjuring themselves, and that’s a population that’s already at risk.

One of the secondary studies that we published out of this project was looking at follow-up with their primary care physicians, and there were two things that we wanted to address. The first was, how often did they do it? Then, when they did do it, did their primary care physicians try to address and prevent subsequent falls?

Both the answers are actually bad. Amazingly, just over like 60% followed up. 

In some of our subsequent research, because we’re in the midst of a randomized, controlled trial where we do a home visit, when we initially see these individuals that have fallen, they’ll schedule a home visit for us. Then a week or two later, when we schedule the home visit, many of them cancel because they think, Oh, that was a one-off and it’s not going to happen again. Part of the problem is the patients, because many of them believe that they just slipped and fell and it’s not going to happen again, or they’re not prone to it.

The second issue was when patients did go to a primary care physician, we have found that some primary care physicians believe that falling and injuring themselves is just part of the normal aging process. A percentage of them don’t go over assessment for fall risk or even initiate fall prevention treatments or programs. 

I try to take that time to tell them that this is very common in their age group, and believe it or not, a fall from standing is the way people really injure themselves, and there may be ways to prevent subsequent falls and injuries. 

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. Do you find that their medications are a contributor in some sense? Say they’re antihypertensive, have issues of orthostasis, or a new medication was added in the last week. 

Dr. Shenvi: It’s all of the above. Sometimes it’s one thing, like they just started tamsulosin for their kidney stone, they stood up, they felt lightheaded, and they fell. Usually, it’s multifactorial with some changes in their gait, vision, balance, reflex time, and strength, plus the medications or the need for assistive devices. Maybe they can’t take care of their home as well as they used to and there are things on the floor. It’s really all of the above.
 

‘Harder to Unlearn Something Than to Learn It’

Dr. Glatter: Would either of you like to add any additional points to the discussion or add a few pearls? 

Dr. Shenvi: This just highlights the challenge of how it’s harder to unlearn something than to learn it, where one study that maybe wasn’t quite looking at what we needed to, or practice and prescribing patterns have changed, so it’s no longer really relevant. 

The things that we learned from that, or the fears that we instilled in our minds of, Uh oh, they could go home and have delayed bleeding, are much harder to unlearn, and it takes more studies to unlearn that idea than it did to actually put it into place. 

I’m glad that your team has done this much larger, prospective study and hopefully will reduce the concern about this entity. 

Dr. Shih: I appreciate that segue. It is amazing that, for paramedics and medical students, the first thing out of their mouth is, “Are they on an anticoagulant?”

In terms of the risk of developing an intracranial hemorrhage, I think it’s much less than the weight we’ve put on it before. However, I believe if they have a bleed, the bleeds are worse. It’s kind of a double-edged sword. It’s still an important factor, but it doesn’t come with the Oh my gosh, they’re on an anticoagulant that everybody thinks about.
 

No. 1 Cause of Traumatic Injury Is a Fall from Standing

Dr. Glatter: These are obviously ground-level falls in most patients and not motor vehicle crashes. That’s an important part in the population that you looked at that should be mentioned clearly. 

Dr. Shih: It’s astonishing. I’ve been a program director for over 20 years, and geriatrics is not well taught in the curriculum. It’s astonishing for many of our trainees and emergency physicians in general that the number-one cause for traumatic injury is a fall from standing.

Certainly, we get patients coming in the trauma center like a 95-year-old person who’s on a ladder putting up his Christmas lights. I’m like, oh my God. 

For the vast majority, it’s closer to 90%, but in our study, for the patients we looked at, it was 80% that fall from standing. That’s the mechanism that causes these bleeds and these major injuries. 

Dr. Shenvi: That’s reflective of what we see, so it’s good that that’s what you looked at also. 

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. Well, thank you both. This has been a very informative discussion. I appreciate your time, and our readers will certainly benefit from your knowledge and expertise. Thank you again.

Dr. Glatter, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, is a medical adviser for this news organization. He disclosed having no relevant financial conflicts. Dr. Shih is professor of emergency medicine at the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. His current grant funding and area of research interest involves geriatric emergency department patients with head injury and fall-related injury. He disclosed receiving a research grant from The Florida Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association Grant for Safety of Health Care Services). Dr. Shenvi, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, disclosed ties with the American College of Emergency Physicians, Institute for Healthcare Improvement, AstraZeneca, and CurvaFix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on August 2, 2024. This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Today, we’ll be discussing the results of a new study published in The Journal of Emergency Medicine, looking at the incidence of delayed intracranial hemorrhage among older patients taking preinjury anticoagulants who present to the emergency department (ED) with blunt head trauma.

Joining me today is the lead author of the study, Dr. Richard Shih, professor of emergency medicine at Florida Atlantic University. Also joining me is Dr. Christina Shenvi, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of North Carolina (UNC) Chapel Hill, with fellowship training in geriatric emergency medicine. 

Welcome to both of you.

Richard D. Shih, MD: Thanks, Rob. 

Christina L. Shenvi, MD, PhD, MBA: Thanks. Pleasure to be here. 
 

ICH Study Methodology

Dr. Glatter: It’s a pleasure to have you. Rich, this is a great study and targeted toward a population we see daily in the emergency department. I want you to describe your methodology, patient selection, and how you went about organizing your study to look at this important finding of delayed intracranial hemorrhage, especially in those on anticoagulants.

Dr. Shih: This all started for our research team when we first read the 2012 Annals of Emergency Medicine paper. The first author was Vincenzo Menditto, and he looked at a group of patients that had minor head injury, were anticoagulated, and had negative initial head CTs. 

There were about 100 patients, of which about 10 of them did not consent, but they hospitalized all these patients. These were anticoagulated, negative-first head CTs. They hospitalized the patients and then did a routine second CT at about 24 hours. They also followed them for a week, and it turned out a little over 7% of them had delayed head CT. 

We were wondering how many delayed intracranial hemorrhages we had missed because current practice for us was that, if patients had a good physical exam, their head CT was normal, and everything looked good, we would send them home.

Because of that, a number of people across the country wanted to verify those findings from the Menditto study. We tried to design a good study to answer that question. We happen to have a very large geriatric population in Florida, and our ED census is very high for age over 65, at nearly 60%. 

There are two Level I trauma centers in Palm Beach County. We included a second multicenter hospital, and we prospectively enrolled patients. We know the current state of practice is not to routinely do second CTs, so we followed these patients over time and followed their medical records to try to identify delayed bleeding. That’s how we set up our methodology.
 

Is It Safe to Discharge Patients With Trauma After 24 Hours?

Dr. Glatter: For the bulk of these patients with negative head CTs, it’s been my practice that when they’re stable and they look fine and there’s no other apparent, distracting painful trauma, injuries and so forth, they’re safe to discharge. 

The secondary outcome in your study is interesting: the need for neurosurgical intervention in terms of those with delayed intracranial hemorrhage.

Dr. Shih: I do believe that it’s certainly not the problem that Menditto described, which is 7%. There are two other prospective studies that have looked at this issue with delayed bleeding on anticoagulants. Both of these also showed a relatively low rate of delayed bleeding, which is between like 0.2% and 1.0%. In our study, it was 0.4%. 

The difference in the studies is that Menditto and colleagues routinely did 24-hour head CTs. They admitted everybody. For these other studies, routine head CT was not part of it. My bet is that there is a rate of delayed bleeding somewhere in between that seen in the Menditto study and that in all the other studies.

However, talking about significant intracranial hemorrhage, ones that perhaps need neurosurgery, I believe most of them are not significant. There’s some number that do occur, but the vast majority of those probably don’t need neurosurgery. We had 14 delayed bleeds out of 6000 patients with head trauma. One of them ended up requiring neurosurgery, so the answer is not zero, but I don’t think it’s 7% either. 

Dr. Glatter: Dr. Shenvi, I want to bring you into the conversation to talk about your experience at UNC, and how you run things in terms of older patients with blunt head trauma on preinjury anticoagulants.

Dr. Shenvi: Thanks, Rob. I remember when this paper came out showing this 7% rate of delayed bleeding and the question was, “Should we be admitting all these people?” Partly just from an overwhelming need for capacity that that would bring, it just wasn’t practical to say, “We’re going to admit every patient with a negative head CT to the hospital and rescan them.” That would be hundreds or thousands of patients each year in any given facility. 

The other thing is that delayed bleeds don’t always happen just in the first 24 hours. It’s not even a matter of bringing patients into observation for 24 hours, watching them, and rescanning them if they have symptoms. It can occur several days out. That never, in almost any institution that I know of, became standard practice. 

The way that it did change my care was to give good return precautions to patients, to make sure they have somebody with them to say, “Hey, sometimes you can have bleeding several days out after a fall, even though your CT scan here today looks perfect,” and to alert them that if they start having severe headaches, vomiting, or other symptoms of intracranial hemorrhage, that they should come back. 

I don’t think it ever became standard practice, and for good reason, because that was one study. The subsequent studies that Richard mentioned, pretty quickly on the heels of that initial one, showed a much lower rate of delayed ICH with the caveats that the methodology was different. 
 

Shift in Anticoagulants

Dr. Shenvi: One other big change from that original study, and now to Richard’s study, is the shift in anticoagulants. Back in the initial study you mentioned, it was all warfarin. We know from other studies looking at warfarin vs the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) that DOACs have lower rates of ICH after a head injury, lower rates of need for neurosurgical intervention, and lower rates of discharge to a skilled nursing facility after an intracranial hemorrhage.

Across the board, we know that the DOACs tend to do better. It’s difficult to compare newer studies because it’s a different medication. It did inform my practice to have an awareness of delayed intracranial hemorrhage so that I warn patients more proactively. 

Dr. Glatter: I haven’t seen a patient on warfarin in years. I don’t know if either of you have, but it’s all DOACs now unless there’s some other reason. That shift is quite apparent.

Dr. Shih: The problem with looking at delayed bleeding for DOACs vs warfarin is the numbers were so low. I think we had 13 people, and seven were in the no-anticoagulant group. The numbers are even lower, so it’s hard to say. 

I just wanted to comment on something that Dr. Shenvi said, and I pretty much agree with everything that she said. Anticoagulants and warfarin, and that Menditto study, have a carryover effect. People group DOACs with warfarin similarly. When a patient is brought in, the first thing they talk about with head trauma is, “Oh, they’re on an anticoagulant” or “They’re not on an anticoagulant.” It’s so ingrained.

I believe that, in emergency medicine, we’re pressed for space and time and we’re not as affected by that 24-hour observation. Maybe many of our surgeons will automatically admit those patients. 

I haven’t seen a guideline from the United States, but there are two international guidelines. One is from Austria from 2019, and one is from Scandinavia. Both recommended 24-hour observation if you’re on an anticoagulant.

There is a bit of controversy left over with that. Hopefully, as more and more of information, like in our study, comes out, people will be a little bit more clear about it. I don’t think there’s a need to routinely admit them. 

I do want to mention that the Menditto study had such a massive impact on everybody. They pointed out one subgroup (and it’s such a small number of patients). They had seven cases of delayed bleeding; four or five of them were within that 24 hours, and a couple were diagnosed later over the next couple days.

Of those seven people, four of them had international normalized ratios (INRs) greater than 3. Of those four patients, I’ve heard people talk about this and recommend, “Okay, that’s the subgroup I would admit.” There’s a toss-up with what to do with DOAC because it’s very hard to tell whether there’s an issue, whether there are problems with their dosing, and whatever. 

We actually recently looked at that. We have a much larger sample than four: close to 300 patients who were on warfarin. We looked at patients who had INRs below 3 and above 3, and we didn’t show a difference. We still don’t believe that warfarin is a big issue with delayed bleeding.
 

Should We Be Asking: ‘Are They on Blood Thinners?’

Dr. Shenvi: One of the interesting trends related to warfarin and the DOACs vs no anticoagulant is that as you mentioned, Dr Shih, the first question out of people’s mouths or the first piece of information emergency medical services gives you when they come in with a patient who’s had a head injury is, “Are they on blood thinners or not?”

Yet, the paradigm is shifting to say it’s not actually the blood thinners themselves that are giving older patients the higher risk for bleeding; it’s age and other comorbidities.

Certainly, if you’re on an anticoagulant and you start to bleed, your prognosis is much worse because the bleeding doesn’t stop. In terms of who has a bleeding event, there’s much less impact of anticoagulation than we used to think. That, in part, may be due to the change from warfarin to other medications.

Some of the experts I’ve talked to who have done the research on this have said, “Well, actually, warfarin was more of a marker for being much older and more frail, because it was primarily prescribed to older patients who have significant heart disease, atrial fibrillation, and so on.” It was more a marker for somebody who is at risk for an intracranial hemorrhage. There are many changes that have happened in the past 10 years with medications and also our understanding. 
 

Challenges in Patient Follow-up

Dr. Glatter: That’s a great point. One thing, Rich, I want to ask you about is in terms of your proxy outcome assessment. When you use that at 14 and 60 days with telephone follow-up and then chart review at 60 and 90 days (because, obviously, everyone can’t get another head CT or it’s difficult to follow patients up), did you find that worked out well in your prospective cohort study, in terms of using that as a proxy, so to speak? 

Dr. Shih: I would say to a certain extent. Unfortunately, we don’t have access to the patients to come back to follow up all of them, and there was obviously a large number of patients in our study. 

The next best thing was that we had dedicated research assistants calling all of the patients at 14 days and 60 days. I’ve certainly read research studies where, when they call them, they get 80%-90% follow-up, but we did not achieve that.

I don’t know if people are more inundated with spam phone calls now, or the older people are just afraid of picking up their phone sometimes with all the scams and so forth. I totally understand, but in all honesty, we only had about a 30%-35% follow-up using that follow-up pathway. 

Then the proxy pathway was to look at their charts at 60 and 90 days. Also, we looked at the Florida death registry, which is pretty good, and then finally, we had both Level I trauma centers in the county that we were in participating. It’s standard practice that if you have an intracranial hemorrhage at a non–Level I trauma center, you would be transferred to a Level I trauma center. That’s the protocol. I know that’s not followed 100% of the time, but that’s part of the proxy follow-up. You could criticize the study for not having closer to 90% actual contact, but that’s the best we could do. 

Dr. Glatter: I think that’s admirable. Using that paradigm of what you described certainly allows the reader to understand the difficulty in assessing patients that don’t get follow-up head CT, and hardly anyone does that, as we know.

To your point of having both Level I trauma centers in the county, that makes it pretty secure. If we’re going to do a study encompassing a similar type of regional aspect, it would be similar.

Dr. Shenvi: I think your proxies, to your credit, were as good as you can get. You can never get a 100% follow-up, but you really looked at all the different avenues by which patients might present, either in the death registry or a Level I center. Well done on that aspect.

 

Determining When to Admit Patients for Observation

Dr. Glatter: In terms of admissions: You admit a patient, then you hear back that this patient should not have been admitted because they had a negative head CT, but you put them in anyway in the sense of delayed bleeding happening or not happening.

It’s interesting. Maybe the insurers will start looking at this in some capacity, based on your study, that because it’s so infrequent that you see delayed bleeding, that admitting someone for any reason whatsoever would be declined. Do you see that being an issue? In other words, [do you see] this leading to a pattern in terms of the payers?

Dr. Shih: Certainly, you could interpret it that way, and that would be unfortunate. The [incidence of] delayed bleeding is definitely not zero. That’s the first thing. 

The second thing is that when you’re dealing with an older population, having some sense that they’re not doing well is an important contributor to trying to fully assess what’s going on — whether or not they have a bleed or whether they’re at risk for falling again and then hitting their head and causing a second bleed, and making sure they can do the activities of daily life. There really should be some room for a physician to say, “They just got here, and we don’t know him that well. There’s something that bothers me about this person” and have the ability to watch them for at least another 24 hours. That’s how I feel. 

Dr. Shenvi: In my location, it would be difficult to try to admit somebody purely for observation for delayed bleeding. I think we would get a lot of pushback on that. The reasons I might admit a patient after a fall with a negative head CT, though, are all the things that, Rob, you alluded to earlier — which are, what made them fall in the first place and were they unable to get up? 

I had this happen just this week. A patient who fell couldn’t get off the ground for 12 hours, and so now she’s dehydrated and delirious with slight rhabdomyolysis. Then you’re admitting them either for the sequelae of the fall that are not related to the intracranial hemorrhage, or the fact that they are so debilitated and deconditioned that they cannot take care of themselves. They need physical therapy. Often, we will have physical and occupational therapists come see them in the ED during business hours and help make an assessment of whether they are safe to go home or whether they fall again. That can give more evidence for the need for admission.

Dr. Glatter: To bring artificial intelligence into this discussion, algorithms that are out there that say, “Push a button and the patient’s safe for discharge.” Well, this argues for a clinical gestalt and a human being to make an assessment because you can use these predictive models, which are coming and they’re going to be here soon, and they already are in some sense. Again, we have to use clinical human judgment. 

Dr. Shih: I agree. 
 

Advice for Primary Care Physicians

Dr. Glatter: What return precautions do you discuss with patients who’ve had blunt head trauma that maybe had a head CT, or even didn’t? What are the main things we’re looking for?

Dr. Shenvi: What I usually tell people is if you start to have a worse headache, nausea or vomiting, any weakness in one area of your body, or vision changes, and if there’s a family member or friend there, I’ll say, “If you notice that they’re acting differently or seem confused, come back.”

Dr. Shih: I agree with what she said, and I’m also going to add one thing. The most important part is they are trying to prevent a subsequent fall. We know that when they’ve fallen and they present to the ED, they’re at even higher risk for falling and reinjuring themselves, and that’s a population that’s already at risk.

One of the secondary studies that we published out of this project was looking at follow-up with their primary care physicians, and there were two things that we wanted to address. The first was, how often did they do it? Then, when they did do it, did their primary care physicians try to address and prevent subsequent falls?

Both the answers are actually bad. Amazingly, just over like 60% followed up. 

In some of our subsequent research, because we’re in the midst of a randomized, controlled trial where we do a home visit, when we initially see these individuals that have fallen, they’ll schedule a home visit for us. Then a week or two later, when we schedule the home visit, many of them cancel because they think, Oh, that was a one-off and it’s not going to happen again. Part of the problem is the patients, because many of them believe that they just slipped and fell and it’s not going to happen again, or they’re not prone to it.

The second issue was when patients did go to a primary care physician, we have found that some primary care physicians believe that falling and injuring themselves is just part of the normal aging process. A percentage of them don’t go over assessment for fall risk or even initiate fall prevention treatments or programs. 

I try to take that time to tell them that this is very common in their age group, and believe it or not, a fall from standing is the way people really injure themselves, and there may be ways to prevent subsequent falls and injuries. 

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. Do you find that their medications are a contributor in some sense? Say they’re antihypertensive, have issues of orthostasis, or a new medication was added in the last week. 

Dr. Shenvi: It’s all of the above. Sometimes it’s one thing, like they just started tamsulosin for their kidney stone, they stood up, they felt lightheaded, and they fell. Usually, it’s multifactorial with some changes in their gait, vision, balance, reflex time, and strength, plus the medications or the need for assistive devices. Maybe they can’t take care of their home as well as they used to and there are things on the floor. It’s really all of the above.
 

‘Harder to Unlearn Something Than to Learn It’

Dr. Glatter: Would either of you like to add any additional points to the discussion or add a few pearls? 

Dr. Shenvi: This just highlights the challenge of how it’s harder to unlearn something than to learn it, where one study that maybe wasn’t quite looking at what we needed to, or practice and prescribing patterns have changed, so it’s no longer really relevant. 

The things that we learned from that, or the fears that we instilled in our minds of, Uh oh, they could go home and have delayed bleeding, are much harder to unlearn, and it takes more studies to unlearn that idea than it did to actually put it into place. 

I’m glad that your team has done this much larger, prospective study and hopefully will reduce the concern about this entity. 

Dr. Shih: I appreciate that segue. It is amazing that, for paramedics and medical students, the first thing out of their mouth is, “Are they on an anticoagulant?”

In terms of the risk of developing an intracranial hemorrhage, I think it’s much less than the weight we’ve put on it before. However, I believe if they have a bleed, the bleeds are worse. It’s kind of a double-edged sword. It’s still an important factor, but it doesn’t come with the Oh my gosh, they’re on an anticoagulant that everybody thinks about.
 

No. 1 Cause of Traumatic Injury Is a Fall from Standing

Dr. Glatter: These are obviously ground-level falls in most patients and not motor vehicle crashes. That’s an important part in the population that you looked at that should be mentioned clearly. 

Dr. Shih: It’s astonishing. I’ve been a program director for over 20 years, and geriatrics is not well taught in the curriculum. It’s astonishing for many of our trainees and emergency physicians in general that the number-one cause for traumatic injury is a fall from standing.

Certainly, we get patients coming in the trauma center like a 95-year-old person who’s on a ladder putting up his Christmas lights. I’m like, oh my God. 

For the vast majority, it’s closer to 90%, but in our study, for the patients we looked at, it was 80% that fall from standing. That’s the mechanism that causes these bleeds and these major injuries. 

Dr. Shenvi: That’s reflective of what we see, so it’s good that that’s what you looked at also. 

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. Well, thank you both. This has been a very informative discussion. I appreciate your time, and our readers will certainly benefit from your knowledge and expertise. Thank you again.

Dr. Glatter, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, is a medical adviser for this news organization. He disclosed having no relevant financial conflicts. Dr. Shih is professor of emergency medicine at the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. His current grant funding and area of research interest involves geriatric emergency department patients with head injury and fall-related injury. He disclosed receiving a research grant from The Florida Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association Grant for Safety of Health Care Services). Dr. Shenvi, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, disclosed ties with the American College of Emergency Physicians, Institute for Healthcare Improvement, AstraZeneca, and CurvaFix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.