Geriatrics

LOS ANGELES – While uncontrolled hypertension is an established risk factor for dementias including Alzheimer’s disease, the pathways by which it might lead to dementia remain poorly understood.

GlobalStock/Getty Images

In research presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference, Jérémie Lespinasse, PharmD, an investigator with the University of Bordeaux and INSERM U1219 in Bordeaux, France, presented data showing that hypertension-linked increases in the brain’s load of white matter hyperintensities – an imaging biomarker linked to small-vessel disease – was associated with cognitive decline independent of amyloid cascade biomarkers.

“We know that hypertension is related to cognitive decline and dementia, including Alzheimer’s dementia,” Carole Dufouil, PhD, the study’s last author and the research director at INSERM U1219, said in an interview. “But we didn’t know the pathway. It could go through what’s more typical of vascular pathology or it could go through what’s more typical of AD – and that’s what we wanted to test.”

The researchers found that the impact of hypertension on cognition doesn’t “go through amyloid,” Dr. Dufouil said, but rather a typically vascular pathway of white matter hyperintensities and neurodegeneration. “This is a big difference from other brain markers for which you know they exist, but you don’t know how to treat them,” she said. “This one is treatable.”

For their research, Dr. Lespinasse, Dr. Dufouil, and colleagues used a cross-sectional sample of data from the MEMENTO study, a 5-year observational cohort of 2,323 patients recruited at 26 memory centers in France between 2011 and 2014. Of the patients in MEMENTO, 62% were women, and the mean age was 71. All patients were deemed free of dementia and had isolated cognitive complaints or mild cognitive impairment at baseline. A total of 60% had hypertension, and 17% had uncontrolled hypertension defined as above 140/90 mm Hg despite treatment. Cognitive testing and MRI was conducted on all patients, while 60% also had ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET scanning and a minority, 18%, had cerebrospinal fluid samples.


The investigators found in using a structural equation model that the uncontrolled hypertension subjects had significantly lower cognition when compared against those without (P = .001). About half of the harmful effect of uncontrolled hypertension on brain functions was mediated by white matter hyperintensities load (P = .021) and neurodegeneration (P = .024) but not by cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for amyloid-beta 42/40 ratio or tau.

The study’s main limitation was its use of cross-sectional data, the investigators said, while its strength was in a multifactorial model that allowed for a more integrative look at the relationships among hypertension, Alzheimer’s biomarkers, white matter hyperintensities, and cognition.

The investigators stressed the importance of controlling hypertension generally – and for all clinicians to be more aware of its cognitive impacts. Dr. Dufouil said that memory clinics should make blood pressure monitoring a key part of their workups, and should ensure that people are well controlled. “Up until recently it hasn’t been obvious” that control of hypertension has a key role in dementia prevention.

“It’s now obvious,” she said.

Dr. Lespinasse and Dr. Dufouil disclosed no industry relationships.

LOS ANGELES – While uncontrolled hypertension is an established risk factor for dementias including Alzheimer’s disease, the pathways by which it might lead to dementia remain poorly understood.

GlobalStock/Getty Images

In research presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference, Jérémie Lespinasse, PharmD, an investigator with the University of Bordeaux and INSERM U1219 in Bordeaux, France, presented data showing that hypertension-linked increases in the brain’s load of white matter hyperintensities – an imaging biomarker linked to small-vessel disease – was associated with cognitive decline independent of amyloid cascade biomarkers.

“We know that hypertension is related to cognitive decline and dementia, including Alzheimer’s dementia,” Carole Dufouil, PhD, the study’s last author and the research director at INSERM U1219, said in an interview. “But we didn’t know the pathway. It could go through what’s more typical of vascular pathology or it could go through what’s more typical of AD – and that’s what we wanted to test.”

The researchers found that the impact of hypertension on cognition doesn’t “go through amyloid,” Dr. Dufouil said, but rather a typically vascular pathway of white matter hyperintensities and neurodegeneration. “This is a big difference from other brain markers for which you know they exist, but you don’t know how to treat them,” she said. “This one is treatable.”

For their research, Dr. Lespinasse, Dr. Dufouil, and colleagues used a cross-sectional sample of data from the MEMENTO study, a 5-year observational cohort of 2,323 patients recruited at 26 memory centers in France between 2011 and 2014. Of the patients in MEMENTO, 62% were women, and the mean age was 71. All patients were deemed free of dementia and had isolated cognitive complaints or mild cognitive impairment at baseline. A total of 60% had hypertension, and 17% had uncontrolled hypertension defined as above 140/90 mm Hg despite treatment. Cognitive testing and MRI was conducted on all patients, while 60% also had ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET scanning and a minority, 18%, had cerebrospinal fluid samples.


The investigators found in using a structural equation model that the uncontrolled hypertension subjects had significantly lower cognition when compared against those without (P = .001). About half of the harmful effect of uncontrolled hypertension on brain functions was mediated by white matter hyperintensities load (P = .021) and neurodegeneration (P = .024) but not by cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for amyloid-beta 42/40 ratio or tau.

The study’s main limitation was its use of cross-sectional data, the investigators said, while its strength was in a multifactorial model that allowed for a more integrative look at the relationships among hypertension, Alzheimer’s biomarkers, white matter hyperintensities, and cognition.

The investigators stressed the importance of controlling hypertension generally – and for all clinicians to be more aware of its cognitive impacts. Dr. Dufouil said that memory clinics should make blood pressure monitoring a key part of their workups, and should ensure that people are well controlled. “Up until recently it hasn’t been obvious” that control of hypertension has a key role in dementia prevention.

“It’s now obvious,” she said.

Dr. Lespinasse and Dr. Dufouil disclosed no industry relationships.

LOS ANGELES – While uncontrolled hypertension is an established risk factor for dementias including Alzheimer’s disease, the pathways by which it might lead to dementia remain poorly understood.

GlobalStock/Getty Images

In research presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference, Jérémie Lespinasse, PharmD, an investigator with the University of Bordeaux and INSERM U1219 in Bordeaux, France, presented data showing that hypertension-linked increases in the brain’s load of white matter hyperintensities – an imaging biomarker linked to small-vessel disease – was associated with cognitive decline independent of amyloid cascade biomarkers.

“We know that hypertension is related to cognitive decline and dementia, including Alzheimer’s dementia,” Carole Dufouil, PhD, the study’s last author and the research director at INSERM U1219, said in an interview. “But we didn’t know the pathway. It could go through what’s more typical of vascular pathology or it could go through what’s more typical of AD – and that’s what we wanted to test.”

The researchers found that the impact of hypertension on cognition doesn’t “go through amyloid,” Dr. Dufouil said, but rather a typically vascular pathway of white matter hyperintensities and neurodegeneration. “This is a big difference from other brain markers for which you know they exist, but you don’t know how to treat them,” she said. “This one is treatable.”

For their research, Dr. Lespinasse, Dr. Dufouil, and colleagues used a cross-sectional sample of data from the MEMENTO study, a 5-year observational cohort of 2,323 patients recruited at 26 memory centers in France between 2011 and 2014. Of the patients in MEMENTO, 62% were women, and the mean age was 71. All patients were deemed free of dementia and had isolated cognitive complaints or mild cognitive impairment at baseline. A total of 60% had hypertension, and 17% had uncontrolled hypertension defined as above 140/90 mm Hg despite treatment. Cognitive testing and MRI was conducted on all patients, while 60% also had ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET scanning and a minority, 18%, had cerebrospinal fluid samples.


The investigators found in using a structural equation model that the uncontrolled hypertension subjects had significantly lower cognition when compared against those without (P = .001). About half of the harmful effect of uncontrolled hypertension on brain functions was mediated by white matter hyperintensities load (P = .021) and neurodegeneration (P = .024) but not by cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for amyloid-beta 42/40 ratio or tau.

The study’s main limitation was its use of cross-sectional data, the investigators said, while its strength was in a multifactorial model that allowed for a more integrative look at the relationships among hypertension, Alzheimer’s biomarkers, white matter hyperintensities, and cognition.

The investigators stressed the importance of controlling hypertension generally – and for all clinicians to be more aware of its cognitive impacts. Dr. Dufouil said that memory clinics should make blood pressure monitoring a key part of their workups, and should ensure that people are well controlled. “Up until recently it hasn’t been obvious” that control of hypertension has a key role in dementia prevention.

“It’s now obvious,” she said.

Dr. Lespinasse and Dr. Dufouil disclosed no industry relationships.

LOS ANGELES – Seizures are not uncommon among patients with Alzheimer’s disease – particularly as patients live longer with the disease – and are often associated with worse cognitive and functional performance, according to research findings presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Jonathan Vöglein, MD, of the German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases and Ludwig-Maximilian University in Munich presented results from a cohort of 9,127 patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), of whom 287 had experienced a seizure, and more than 10,000 non-AD control subjects recruited at clinics during 2005-2016.

Dr. Vöglein and colleagues found that seizure risk increased with duration of disease, from 1.5% of patients at 4.8 years with the disease to 5.4% at 11 years, with likelihood of a seizure increasing steadily over time.

Moreover, 70% of AD patients who experienced a seizure had a second one within 7.5 months. People who had seizures fared worse on cognitive and functional tests: a mean 16.6 on the Mini Mental State Examination, compared with 19.6 for patients without seizures. On a severity rating scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes, patients with seizures also fared worse, with scores of 9.3, compared with 6.8 for patients without seizures (P less than .0001 for all, with results adjusted for age and disease duration).

“The data of our study show that there’s an association of seizures with worse cognitive and functional performance,” Dr. Vöglein said in an interview.

“It’s important for clinicians to know that Alzheimer’s patients are at an increased risk for seizures,” Dr. Vöglein said. “In my clinical care experience, seizures are rarely the main complaint of patients with Alzheimer’s disease.” Detailed interviews with the patient and a proxy are important, he added, because patients with Alzheimer’s disease may not always remember events that could be a seizure.

Dr. Vöglein noted that, to his knowledge, there are no reliable data showing that treating seizures with antiepileptic drugs slows cognitive decline. “The results of our study suggest that an antiepileptic treatment after a first seizure in patients with Alzheimer’s dementia may be considered,” he said.

Also at the conference, researcher Ruby Castilla-Puentes, MD, DrPH, of Janssen Pharmaceuticals in Hopewell, N.J., along with Miguel Habeych, MD, MPH, of the University of Cincinnati presented findings on dementia and seizure risk from a large U.S. national managed care database of nearly 3 million people aged 60 years and older, of whom 56% were women.

The researchers analyzed this cohort during 2005-2014 and identified 80,000 people (2.8% of the cohort) as having any dementia diagnosis. The overall incidence of new-onset seizures in patients with dementia was 12.3% per year. In general, all subtypes of seizures and epileptic disorders (partial, generalized, or undifferentiated) occurred more frequently in patients with dementia, compared against patients without dementia (P less than .0001).

People with dementia had more than six times greater risk for experiencing recurring epileptic seizures than did people without dementia (95% confidence interval, 4.4-9.5). They were at six times higher risk for partial seizures (95% CI, 5.5-6.6); fivefold higher risk for generalized (95% CI, 4.9-5.5) and undifferentiated epilepsy (95% CI, 4.8-5.2); and 4.75 times higher risk for generalized seizures (95% CI, 4.5-5.0) and partial epilepsy (95% CI, 4.4-5.1).

“Although there are limitations with the use of administrative claims databases to calculate incidence rates, this analysis suggests that patients of 60 years of age or older have higher risks of new-onset seizures associated with a dementia diagnosis,” Dr. Castilla-Puentes commented.

The findings, she said, reinforce the need for clinicians to monitor for seizures to ensure that patients with dementia receive appropriate treatment.

Dr. Vöglein disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Castilla-Puentes disclosed being an employee of Janssen, which funded her study.

LOS ANGELES – Seizures are not uncommon among patients with Alzheimer’s disease – particularly as patients live longer with the disease – and are often associated with worse cognitive and functional performance, according to research findings presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Jonathan Vöglein, MD, of the German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases and Ludwig-Maximilian University in Munich presented results from a cohort of 9,127 patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), of whom 287 had experienced a seizure, and more than 10,000 non-AD control subjects recruited at clinics during 2005-2016.

Dr. Vöglein and colleagues found that seizure risk increased with duration of disease, from 1.5% of patients at 4.8 years with the disease to 5.4% at 11 years, with likelihood of a seizure increasing steadily over time.

Moreover, 70% of AD patients who experienced a seizure had a second one within 7.5 months. People who had seizures fared worse on cognitive and functional tests: a mean 16.6 on the Mini Mental State Examination, compared with 19.6 for patients without seizures. On a severity rating scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes, patients with seizures also fared worse, with scores of 9.3, compared with 6.8 for patients without seizures (P less than .0001 for all, with results adjusted for age and disease duration).

“The data of our study show that there’s an association of seizures with worse cognitive and functional performance,” Dr. Vöglein said in an interview.

“It’s important for clinicians to know that Alzheimer’s patients are at an increased risk for seizures,” Dr. Vöglein said. “In my clinical care experience, seizures are rarely the main complaint of patients with Alzheimer’s disease.” Detailed interviews with the patient and a proxy are important, he added, because patients with Alzheimer’s disease may not always remember events that could be a seizure.

Dr. Vöglein noted that, to his knowledge, there are no reliable data showing that treating seizures with antiepileptic drugs slows cognitive decline. “The results of our study suggest that an antiepileptic treatment after a first seizure in patients with Alzheimer’s dementia may be considered,” he said.

Also at the conference, researcher Ruby Castilla-Puentes, MD, DrPH, of Janssen Pharmaceuticals in Hopewell, N.J., along with Miguel Habeych, MD, MPH, of the University of Cincinnati presented findings on dementia and seizure risk from a large U.S. national managed care database of nearly 3 million people aged 60 years and older, of whom 56% were women.

The researchers analyzed this cohort during 2005-2014 and identified 80,000 people (2.8% of the cohort) as having any dementia diagnosis. The overall incidence of new-onset seizures in patients with dementia was 12.3% per year. In general, all subtypes of seizures and epileptic disorders (partial, generalized, or undifferentiated) occurred more frequently in patients with dementia, compared against patients without dementia (P less than .0001).

People with dementia had more than six times greater risk for experiencing recurring epileptic seizures than did people without dementia (95% confidence interval, 4.4-9.5). They were at six times higher risk for partial seizures (95% CI, 5.5-6.6); fivefold higher risk for generalized (95% CI, 4.9-5.5) and undifferentiated epilepsy (95% CI, 4.8-5.2); and 4.75 times higher risk for generalized seizures (95% CI, 4.5-5.0) and partial epilepsy (95% CI, 4.4-5.1).

“Although there are limitations with the use of administrative claims databases to calculate incidence rates, this analysis suggests that patients of 60 years of age or older have higher risks of new-onset seizures associated with a dementia diagnosis,” Dr. Castilla-Puentes commented.

The findings, she said, reinforce the need for clinicians to monitor for seizures to ensure that patients with dementia receive appropriate treatment.

Dr. Vöglein disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Castilla-Puentes disclosed being an employee of Janssen, which funded her study.

LOS ANGELES – Seizures are not uncommon among patients with Alzheimer’s disease – particularly as patients live longer with the disease – and are often associated with worse cognitive and functional performance, according to research findings presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Jonathan Vöglein, MD, of the German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases and Ludwig-Maximilian University in Munich presented results from a cohort of 9,127 patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), of whom 287 had experienced a seizure, and more than 10,000 non-AD control subjects recruited at clinics during 2005-2016.

Dr. Vöglein and colleagues found that seizure risk increased with duration of disease, from 1.5% of patients at 4.8 years with the disease to 5.4% at 11 years, with likelihood of a seizure increasing steadily over time.

Moreover, 70% of AD patients who experienced a seizure had a second one within 7.5 months. People who had seizures fared worse on cognitive and functional tests: a mean 16.6 on the Mini Mental State Examination, compared with 19.6 for patients without seizures. On a severity rating scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes, patients with seizures also fared worse, with scores of 9.3, compared with 6.8 for patients without seizures (P less than .0001 for all, with results adjusted for age and disease duration).

“The data of our study show that there’s an association of seizures with worse cognitive and functional performance,” Dr. Vöglein said in an interview.

“It’s important for clinicians to know that Alzheimer’s patients are at an increased risk for seizures,” Dr. Vöglein said. “In my clinical care experience, seizures are rarely the main complaint of patients with Alzheimer’s disease.” Detailed interviews with the patient and a proxy are important, he added, because patients with Alzheimer’s disease may not always remember events that could be a seizure.

Dr. Vöglein noted that, to his knowledge, there are no reliable data showing that treating seizures with antiepileptic drugs slows cognitive decline. “The results of our study suggest that an antiepileptic treatment after a first seizure in patients with Alzheimer’s dementia may be considered,” he said.

Also at the conference, researcher Ruby Castilla-Puentes, MD, DrPH, of Janssen Pharmaceuticals in Hopewell, N.J., along with Miguel Habeych, MD, MPH, of the University of Cincinnati presented findings on dementia and seizure risk from a large U.S. national managed care database of nearly 3 million people aged 60 years and older, of whom 56% were women.

The researchers analyzed this cohort during 2005-2014 and identified 80,000 people (2.8% of the cohort) as having any dementia diagnosis. The overall incidence of new-onset seizures in patients with dementia was 12.3% per year. In general, all subtypes of seizures and epileptic disorders (partial, generalized, or undifferentiated) occurred more frequently in patients with dementia, compared against patients without dementia (P less than .0001).

People with dementia had more than six times greater risk for experiencing recurring epileptic seizures than did people without dementia (95% confidence interval, 4.4-9.5). They were at six times higher risk for partial seizures (95% CI, 5.5-6.6); fivefold higher risk for generalized (95% CI, 4.9-5.5) and undifferentiated epilepsy (95% CI, 4.8-5.2); and 4.75 times higher risk for generalized seizures (95% CI, 4.5-5.0) and partial epilepsy (95% CI, 4.4-5.1).

“Although there are limitations with the use of administrative claims databases to calculate incidence rates, this analysis suggests that patients of 60 years of age or older have higher risks of new-onset seizures associated with a dementia diagnosis,” Dr. Castilla-Puentes commented.

The findings, she said, reinforce the need for clinicians to monitor for seizures to ensure that patients with dementia receive appropriate treatment.

Dr. Vöglein disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Castilla-Puentes disclosed being an employee of Janssen, which funded her study.

Once-weekly subcutaneous injections of the osteoporosis drug teriparatide still achieve increases in bone mineral density, according to a postmarketing observational study published online in Osteoporosis and Sarcopenia.

Teriparatide is widely used as a daily, self-injection formula for osteoporosis, but in Japan, a once-weekly injectable formulation of 56.5 ug is also being used in individuals with osteoporosis who are at high risk of fracture.

In a study of 3,573 Japanese patients with osteoporosis, investigators found increases of 2.8%, 4.9%, and 6.1% in lumbar spine bone mineral density measured at 24, 48, and 72 weeks respectively. In the femoral neck, bone mineral density increased by 1.6%, 1.4%, and 2.5% at 24, 48, and 72 weeks, and total hip bone mineral density increased by 1%, 1.6%, and 2.5%.

At 24 weeks, the median percent change from baseline in the level of serum bone formation marker procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide increased 23%, and then decreased to a 4.3% median change at 48 weeks and 8.7% at 72 weeks. There were no significant changes in serum bone-type alkaline phosphatase by 48 and 72 weeks, and no changes at all in the bone turnover markers tartrate-resistant acid phosphate-5b and cross-linked N-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen.

Researchers also saw reductions in low back pain scores at all the time points, although the authors noted that the mechanism of this association was not well understood and needed further study.

“The results for efficacy parameters, including fracture incidences, in this surveillance were as expected based on the clinical studies prior to approval, indicating that the medical benefits of teriparatide were demonstrated in actual clinical practice after marketing,” wrote Dr. Emiko Ifuku and colleagues from Asahi Kasei Pharma, which manufactures the drug in Japan.

The study also looked at adherence to the once-weekly therapy, and found that 59.4% of patients were still taking the treatment at 24 weeks, and 39% were taking it at 72 weeks.

Around a quarter of patients experienced adverse reactions, with the most common being nausea (12.3%), vomiting (2.8%), headache (2.7%), and dizziness (2.2%) and most occurring within 24 weeks of starting treatment. Serious adverse reactions were reported in 26 patients (0.7%).

Asahi Kasei Pharma sponsored the study. All of the authors were employees of the company.

SOURCE: Ifuku E et al. Osteoporos Sarcopenia. 2019 Jun 26. doi: 10.1016/j.afos.2019.06.002.

Once-weekly subcutaneous injections of the osteoporosis drug teriparatide still achieve increases in bone mineral density, according to a postmarketing observational study published online in Osteoporosis and Sarcopenia.

Teriparatide is widely used as a daily, self-injection formula for osteoporosis, but in Japan, a once-weekly injectable formulation of 56.5 ug is also being used in individuals with osteoporosis who are at high risk of fracture.

In a study of 3,573 Japanese patients with osteoporosis, investigators found increases of 2.8%, 4.9%, and 6.1% in lumbar spine bone mineral density measured at 24, 48, and 72 weeks respectively. In the femoral neck, bone mineral density increased by 1.6%, 1.4%, and 2.5% at 24, 48, and 72 weeks, and total hip bone mineral density increased by 1%, 1.6%, and 2.5%.

At 24 weeks, the median percent change from baseline in the level of serum bone formation marker procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide increased 23%, and then decreased to a 4.3% median change at 48 weeks and 8.7% at 72 weeks. There were no significant changes in serum bone-type alkaline phosphatase by 48 and 72 weeks, and no changes at all in the bone turnover markers tartrate-resistant acid phosphate-5b and cross-linked N-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen.

Researchers also saw reductions in low back pain scores at all the time points, although the authors noted that the mechanism of this association was not well understood and needed further study.

“The results for efficacy parameters, including fracture incidences, in this surveillance were as expected based on the clinical studies prior to approval, indicating that the medical benefits of teriparatide were demonstrated in actual clinical practice after marketing,” wrote Dr. Emiko Ifuku and colleagues from Asahi Kasei Pharma, which manufactures the drug in Japan.

The study also looked at adherence to the once-weekly therapy, and found that 59.4% of patients were still taking the treatment at 24 weeks, and 39% were taking it at 72 weeks.

Around a quarter of patients experienced adverse reactions, with the most common being nausea (12.3%), vomiting (2.8%), headache (2.7%), and dizziness (2.2%) and most occurring within 24 weeks of starting treatment. Serious adverse reactions were reported in 26 patients (0.7%).

Asahi Kasei Pharma sponsored the study. All of the authors were employees of the company.

SOURCE: Ifuku E et al. Osteoporos Sarcopenia. 2019 Jun 26. doi: 10.1016/j.afos.2019.06.002.

Once-weekly subcutaneous injections of the osteoporosis drug teriparatide still achieve increases in bone mineral density, according to a postmarketing observational study published online in Osteoporosis and Sarcopenia.

Teriparatide is widely used as a daily, self-injection formula for osteoporosis, but in Japan, a once-weekly injectable formulation of 56.5 ug is also being used in individuals with osteoporosis who are at high risk of fracture.

In a study of 3,573 Japanese patients with osteoporosis, investigators found increases of 2.8%, 4.9%, and 6.1% in lumbar spine bone mineral density measured at 24, 48, and 72 weeks respectively. In the femoral neck, bone mineral density increased by 1.6%, 1.4%, and 2.5% at 24, 48, and 72 weeks, and total hip bone mineral density increased by 1%, 1.6%, and 2.5%.

At 24 weeks, the median percent change from baseline in the level of serum bone formation marker procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide increased 23%, and then decreased to a 4.3% median change at 48 weeks and 8.7% at 72 weeks. There were no significant changes in serum bone-type alkaline phosphatase by 48 and 72 weeks, and no changes at all in the bone turnover markers tartrate-resistant acid phosphate-5b and cross-linked N-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen.

Researchers also saw reductions in low back pain scores at all the time points, although the authors noted that the mechanism of this association was not well understood and needed further study.

“The results for efficacy parameters, including fracture incidences, in this surveillance were as expected based on the clinical studies prior to approval, indicating that the medical benefits of teriparatide were demonstrated in actual clinical practice after marketing,” wrote Dr. Emiko Ifuku and colleagues from Asahi Kasei Pharma, which manufactures the drug in Japan.

The study also looked at adherence to the once-weekly therapy, and found that 59.4% of patients were still taking the treatment at 24 weeks, and 39% were taking it at 72 weeks.

Around a quarter of patients experienced adverse reactions, with the most common being nausea (12.3%), vomiting (2.8%), headache (2.7%), and dizziness (2.2%) and most occurring within 24 weeks of starting treatment. Serious adverse reactions were reported in 26 patients (0.7%).

Asahi Kasei Pharma sponsored the study. All of the authors were employees of the company.

SOURCE: Ifuku E et al. Osteoporos Sarcopenia. 2019 Jun 26. doi: 10.1016/j.afos.2019.06.002.

SAN FRANCISCO – Used appropriately, the benefits of benzodiazepines far outweigh the risks in elderly people, according to Carl Salzman, MD, a psychiatry professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Appropriate use means very low doses – 0.5 mg or less every day or b.i.d. – of short-acting benzodiazepines, either lorazepam, oxazepam, or temazepam. There’s no worry of dose escalation or addiction in the elderly, and since the drugs are not metabolized by the cytochrome P450 system, the risk of drug interactions is very small, except for a compounding effect with alcohol and other sedative hypnotics, such as zolpidem (Ambien). The fall risk is lower than it is with antidepressants and antipsychotics (Psychiatr Serv. 2003 Jul;54[7]:1006-1); (Arch Intern Med. 2009 Nov 23;169[21]:1952-60).

In short, the drugs are “wonderful” for geriatric anxiety and anxiety-related insomnia, Dr. Salzman said at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting.

Even so, it’s “very hard to get doctors and residents to prescribe them.” It’s like the benzodiazepine scare in the 1980s, about valium. “Newspapers were filled with stories about addicts. I’m having a little bit of déjà vu all over again,” he said.

This time around, the problem is a concern that benzodiazepines cause Alzheimer’s disease, plus collateral damage from the opioid crisis. People with addiction to opioids like benzodiazepines, because they boost the high, so they have significant street value, and drug seekers demand them in the clinic. Some clinicians would rather not deal with the drugs at all.

The Alzheimer’s worry stems largely from a widely reported review that found an association between Alzheimer’s disease and previous benzodiazepine use. The finding was based on public health insurance data from Quebec; no patients were seen (BMJ. 2014 Sep 9;349:g5205).

Among many “very large questions” about the study’s validity, people “may have been on benzos because they already had memory impairment and were anxious about it,” a common occurrence. In that case, “it’s not that benzos caused dementia; it was the other way around.” Also, there was no control for substance and alcohol use, Dr. Salzman said (J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2015 Feb;35[1]:1-3).

A more robust study followed patients 65 years and older for a mean of 7.3 years, comparing benzodiazepine users to nonusers. The team found a slightly higher risk of dementia in people with minimal exposure to benzodiazepines but not with the highest level of exposure, and concluded that the finding did “not support a causal association between benzodiazepine use and dementia” (BMJ. 2016 Feb 2;352:i90).

Meanwhile, a recent review of more than a million patients found either no or a minor increased risk of mortality, another concern with benzodiazepines in the elderly. “If a detrimental effect exists, it is likely to be much smaller than previously stated and to have uncertain clinical relevance. Residual confounding likely explains at least part of” it, the investigators concluded (BMJ. 2017 Jul 6;358:j294).

To be sure, short-term memory loss can occur with benzodiazepines, but patients did not seem to mind in a study Dr. Salzman conducted years ago in an upscale nursing home in Boston. A “dramatic” rebound was reported in short-term recall 2 weeks after volunteers tapered off benzodiazepines, mostly lorazepam, compared with those who stayed on them.

“I sat down to have lunch with the discontinuers, and I said to them, ‘Aren’t you glad that you are not taking these horrible drugs anymore, and your memory is so much better? They said, ‘No, what’s to remember? It was true that when we were taking those drugs, we might not have remembered what we watched on television the night before, but if you give a choice between feeling calm in the days, sleeping at night, and remembering what we watch on television, we’ll take the calm and the sleep every time,’ ” Dr. Salzman said.

He had no disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SAN FRANCISCO – Used appropriately, the benefits of benzodiazepines far outweigh the risks in elderly people, according to Carl Salzman, MD, a psychiatry professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Appropriate use means very low doses – 0.5 mg or less every day or b.i.d. – of short-acting benzodiazepines, either lorazepam, oxazepam, or temazepam. There’s no worry of dose escalation or addiction in the elderly, and since the drugs are not metabolized by the cytochrome P450 system, the risk of drug interactions is very small, except for a compounding effect with alcohol and other sedative hypnotics, such as zolpidem (Ambien). The fall risk is lower than it is with antidepressants and antipsychotics (Psychiatr Serv. 2003 Jul;54[7]:1006-1); (Arch Intern Med. 2009 Nov 23;169[21]:1952-60).

In short, the drugs are “wonderful” for geriatric anxiety and anxiety-related insomnia, Dr. Salzman said at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting.

Even so, it’s “very hard to get doctors and residents to prescribe them.” It’s like the benzodiazepine scare in the 1980s, about valium. “Newspapers were filled with stories about addicts. I’m having a little bit of déjà vu all over again,” he said.

This time around, the problem is a concern that benzodiazepines cause Alzheimer’s disease, plus collateral damage from the opioid crisis. People with addiction to opioids like benzodiazepines, because they boost the high, so they have significant street value, and drug seekers demand them in the clinic. Some clinicians would rather not deal with the drugs at all.

The Alzheimer’s worry stems largely from a widely reported review that found an association between Alzheimer’s disease and previous benzodiazepine use. The finding was based on public health insurance data from Quebec; no patients were seen (BMJ. 2014 Sep 9;349:g5205).

Among many “very large questions” about the study’s validity, people “may have been on benzos because they already had memory impairment and were anxious about it,” a common occurrence. In that case, “it’s not that benzos caused dementia; it was the other way around.” Also, there was no control for substance and alcohol use, Dr. Salzman said (J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2015 Feb;35[1]:1-3).

A more robust study followed patients 65 years and older for a mean of 7.3 years, comparing benzodiazepine users to nonusers. The team found a slightly higher risk of dementia in people with minimal exposure to benzodiazepines but not with the highest level of exposure, and concluded that the finding did “not support a causal association between benzodiazepine use and dementia” (BMJ. 2016 Feb 2;352:i90).

Meanwhile, a recent review of more than a million patients found either no or a minor increased risk of mortality, another concern with benzodiazepines in the elderly. “If a detrimental effect exists, it is likely to be much smaller than previously stated and to have uncertain clinical relevance. Residual confounding likely explains at least part of” it, the investigators concluded (BMJ. 2017 Jul 6;358:j294).

To be sure, short-term memory loss can occur with benzodiazepines, but patients did not seem to mind in a study Dr. Salzman conducted years ago in an upscale nursing home in Boston. A “dramatic” rebound was reported in short-term recall 2 weeks after volunteers tapered off benzodiazepines, mostly lorazepam, compared with those who stayed on them.

“I sat down to have lunch with the discontinuers, and I said to them, ‘Aren’t you glad that you are not taking these horrible drugs anymore, and your memory is so much better? They said, ‘No, what’s to remember? It was true that when we were taking those drugs, we might not have remembered what we watched on television the night before, but if you give a choice between feeling calm in the days, sleeping at night, and remembering what we watch on television, we’ll take the calm and the sleep every time,’ ” Dr. Salzman said.

He had no disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SAN FRANCISCO – Used appropriately, the benefits of benzodiazepines far outweigh the risks in elderly people, according to Carl Salzman, MD, a psychiatry professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Appropriate use means very low doses – 0.5 mg or less every day or b.i.d. – of short-acting benzodiazepines, either lorazepam, oxazepam, or temazepam. There’s no worry of dose escalation or addiction in the elderly, and since the drugs are not metabolized by the cytochrome P450 system, the risk of drug interactions is very small, except for a compounding effect with alcohol and other sedative hypnotics, such as zolpidem (Ambien). The fall risk is lower than it is with antidepressants and antipsychotics (Psychiatr Serv. 2003 Jul;54[7]:1006-1); (Arch Intern Med. 2009 Nov 23;169[21]:1952-60).

In short, the drugs are “wonderful” for geriatric anxiety and anxiety-related insomnia, Dr. Salzman said at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting.

Even so, it’s “very hard to get doctors and residents to prescribe them.” It’s like the benzodiazepine scare in the 1980s, about valium. “Newspapers were filled with stories about addicts. I’m having a little bit of déjà vu all over again,” he said.

This time around, the problem is a concern that benzodiazepines cause Alzheimer’s disease, plus collateral damage from the opioid crisis. People with addiction to opioids like benzodiazepines, because they boost the high, so they have significant street value, and drug seekers demand them in the clinic. Some clinicians would rather not deal with the drugs at all.

The Alzheimer’s worry stems largely from a widely reported review that found an association between Alzheimer’s disease and previous benzodiazepine use. The finding was based on public health insurance data from Quebec; no patients were seen (BMJ. 2014 Sep 9;349:g5205).

Among many “very large questions” about the study’s validity, people “may have been on benzos because they already had memory impairment and were anxious about it,” a common occurrence. In that case, “it’s not that benzos caused dementia; it was the other way around.” Also, there was no control for substance and alcohol use, Dr. Salzman said (J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2015 Feb;35[1]:1-3).

A more robust study followed patients 65 years and older for a mean of 7.3 years, comparing benzodiazepine users to nonusers. The team found a slightly higher risk of dementia in people with minimal exposure to benzodiazepines but not with the highest level of exposure, and concluded that the finding did “not support a causal association between benzodiazepine use and dementia” (BMJ. 2016 Feb 2;352:i90).

Meanwhile, a recent review of more than a million patients found either no or a minor increased risk of mortality, another concern with benzodiazepines in the elderly. “If a detrimental effect exists, it is likely to be much smaller than previously stated and to have uncertain clinical relevance. Residual confounding likely explains at least part of” it, the investigators concluded (BMJ. 2017 Jul 6;358:j294).

To be sure, short-term memory loss can occur with benzodiazepines, but patients did not seem to mind in a study Dr. Salzman conducted years ago in an upscale nursing home in Boston. A “dramatic” rebound was reported in short-term recall 2 weeks after volunteers tapered off benzodiazepines, mostly lorazepam, compared with those who stayed on them.

“I sat down to have lunch with the discontinuers, and I said to them, ‘Aren’t you glad that you are not taking these horrible drugs anymore, and your memory is so much better? They said, ‘No, what’s to remember? It was true that when we were taking those drugs, we might not have remembered what we watched on television the night before, but if you give a choice between feeling calm in the days, sleeping at night, and remembering what we watch on television, we’ll take the calm and the sleep every time,’ ” Dr. Salzman said.

He had no disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

The clinical update of giant cell arteritis (GCA) by Rinden et al in this issue of the Journal reminded me of just how much of our management of this disease has, for decades, been based on retrospective studies (we owe a lot to clinicians from the Mayo Clinic for their compiled observations) tempered by our own recalled experiences, which we may at times twist a bit to fit prevailing paradigms. Several prospective interventional studies, perhaps most importantly the Giant-Cell Arteritis Actemra (GIACTA) trial,¹ evaluated the ability of the interleukin 6 (IL-6) antagonist tocilizumab to supplant the protracted use of glucocorticoids in the treatment of GCA. But I learned much more from this trial, in the form of collected clinical tidbits, than just the bottom-line abstract conclusion that IL-6 antagonism is at least a promising approach in many patients with GCA.

As teachers, we tell students to read the entire published clinical trial report, not just the abstract and conclusions. Over the years, I have been impatient with those who violated this dictum, but I now often find myself among the ranks of those who would have been targets of my disapproval. Usually, the articles that I merely skim lie outside my subsubspecialty areas of interest, as time constraints make this abridged reading a necessity for survival, but that excuse does not diminish the self-recognition of my often less-than-complete understanding of the clinical condition being reported. Delving into the nuances of GIACTA truly emphasized that point.

The external validity of any trial rests on understanding the trial’s methods. In the case of GIACTA, there was much more to be learned and affirmed from the trial¹ than that 1 year of tocilizumab treatment met the primary end point of increasing the percent of patients achieving sustained remission at week 52 after a rapid 26-week tapering off of prednisone compared with placebo.

One treatment group in the GIACTA trial underwent an aggressive 6-month tapering of prednisone, while another underwent a more protracted tapering over 12 months (more in line with common practice). Patients tapered over 6 months also received either the IL-6 antagonist or placebo for the full year. The concept was that if IL-6 blockade is a correct approach, then it will maintain remission in more patients, and significantly reduce the total amount of steroid needed to control the disease, despite rapid, aggressive steroid tapering. This turned out to be correct, although more than 20% of the drug-treated patients still experienced a flare of GCA (vs 68% of the placebo-treated group).

Somewhat surprising was that almost 20% of the entered patients did not achieve an initial remission despite receiving high-dose prednisone. The traditional teaching is that if a patient diagnosed with GCA does not respond to high-dose steroids, the diagnosis should be questioned.

Another interesting facet of the study relates to the diagnosis. We are becoming more aware of the different GCA phenotypes, which include prominent polymyalgia rheumatica or constitutional features, “classic” GCA with cranial symptoms, and dominant large-vessel vasculitis (aortitis and major aortic branch disease). In GIACTA, even though imaging was not mandated, 37% of participants were enrolled based in part on imaging results (CT, MRI, angiography, or PET-CT), not on the results of temporal artery biopsy. This forces us to think more broadly about diagnosing and staging GCA, and to wonder if we should even modify our approach to other clinical challenges, including unexplained fever and wasting in older patients.

Another tidbit that came out of the study relates to the relationship between the acute-phase response and clinical flares. We already knew that a rise in the erythrocyte sedimentation rate is a nonspecific sign and does not equate with a flare. In this trial one-third of patients in the placebo group who had a flare had a normal sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein during the flare, and about one-third of patients in the placebo group were receiving more than 10 mg of prednisone. In preliminary reports of follow-up after  52 weeks of treatment,² patients who had achieved complete remission with the IL-6 antagonist and were off of prednisone were still not out of the woods; when the drug was discontinued, many flares continued to occur over the 2-year study extension. We have more to learn about what triggers and drives flares in this disease.

Thus, in addition to informing us of a successful “steroid-sparing” and rescue drug option for our patients with GCA, the details of this well-conducted trial both challenge and reaffirm some of our clinical impressions. Clearly, GCA must be defined for many patients as a very chronic disease, perhaps with occult vascular reservoirs, the biologic basis of which remains to be defined.

The clinical update of giant cell arteritis (GCA) by Rinden et al in this issue of the Journal reminded me of just how much of our management of this disease has, for decades, been based on retrospective studies (we owe a lot to clinicians from the Mayo Clinic for their compiled observations) tempered by our own recalled experiences, which we may at times twist a bit to fit prevailing paradigms. Several prospective interventional studies, perhaps most importantly the Giant-Cell Arteritis Actemra (GIACTA) trial,¹ evaluated the ability of the interleukin 6 (IL-6) antagonist tocilizumab to supplant the protracted use of glucocorticoids in the treatment of GCA. But I learned much more from this trial, in the form of collected clinical tidbits, than just the bottom-line abstract conclusion that IL-6 antagonism is at least a promising approach in many patients with GCA.

As teachers, we tell students to read the entire published clinical trial report, not just the abstract and conclusions. Over the years, I have been impatient with those who violated this dictum, but I now often find myself among the ranks of those who would have been targets of my disapproval. Usually, the articles that I merely skim lie outside my subsubspecialty areas of interest, as time constraints make this abridged reading a necessity for survival, but that excuse does not diminish the self-recognition of my often less-than-complete understanding of the clinical condition being reported. Delving into the nuances of GIACTA truly emphasized that point.

The external validity of any trial rests on understanding the trial’s methods. In the case of GIACTA, there was much more to be learned and affirmed from the trial¹ than that 1 year of tocilizumab treatment met the primary end point of increasing the percent of patients achieving sustained remission at week 52 after a rapid 26-week tapering off of prednisone compared with placebo.

One treatment group in the GIACTA trial underwent an aggressive 6-month tapering of prednisone, while another underwent a more protracted tapering over 12 months (more in line with common practice). Patients tapered over 6 months also received either the IL-6 antagonist or placebo for the full year. The concept was that if IL-6 blockade is a correct approach, then it will maintain remission in more patients, and significantly reduce the total amount of steroid needed to control the disease, despite rapid, aggressive steroid tapering. This turned out to be correct, although more than 20% of the drug-treated patients still experienced a flare of GCA (vs 68% of the placebo-treated group).

Somewhat surprising was that almost 20% of the entered patients did not achieve an initial remission despite receiving high-dose prednisone. The traditional teaching is that if a patient diagnosed with GCA does not respond to high-dose steroids, the diagnosis should be questioned.

Another interesting facet of the study relates to the diagnosis. We are becoming more aware of the different GCA phenotypes, which include prominent polymyalgia rheumatica or constitutional features, “classic” GCA with cranial symptoms, and dominant large-vessel vasculitis (aortitis and major aortic branch disease). In GIACTA, even though imaging was not mandated, 37% of participants were enrolled based in part on imaging results (CT, MRI, angiography, or PET-CT), not on the results of temporal artery biopsy. This forces us to think more broadly about diagnosing and staging GCA, and to wonder if we should even modify our approach to other clinical challenges, including unexplained fever and wasting in older patients.

Another tidbit that came out of the study relates to the relationship between the acute-phase response and clinical flares. We already knew that a rise in the erythrocyte sedimentation rate is a nonspecific sign and does not equate with a flare. In this trial one-third of patients in the placebo group who had a flare had a normal sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein during the flare, and about one-third of patients in the placebo group were receiving more than 10 mg of prednisone. In preliminary reports of follow-up after  52 weeks of treatment,² patients who had achieved complete remission with the IL-6 antagonist and were off of prednisone were still not out of the woods; when the drug was discontinued, many flares continued to occur over the 2-year study extension. We have more to learn about what triggers and drives flares in this disease.

Thus, in addition to informing us of a successful “steroid-sparing” and rescue drug option for our patients with GCA, the details of this well-conducted trial both challenge and reaffirm some of our clinical impressions. Clearly, GCA must be defined for many patients as a very chronic disease, perhaps with occult vascular reservoirs, the biologic basis of which remains to be defined.

The clinical update of giant cell arteritis (GCA) by Rinden et al in this issue of the Journal reminded me of just how much of our management of this disease has, for decades, been based on retrospective studies (we owe a lot to clinicians from the Mayo Clinic for their compiled observations) tempered by our own recalled experiences, which we may at times twist a bit to fit prevailing paradigms. Several prospective interventional studies, perhaps most importantly the Giant-Cell Arteritis Actemra (GIACTA) trial,¹ evaluated the ability of the interleukin 6 (IL-6) antagonist tocilizumab to supplant the protracted use of glucocorticoids in the treatment of GCA. But I learned much more from this trial, in the form of collected clinical tidbits, than just the bottom-line abstract conclusion that IL-6 antagonism is at least a promising approach in many patients with GCA.

As teachers, we tell students to read the entire published clinical trial report, not just the abstract and conclusions. Over the years, I have been impatient with those who violated this dictum, but I now often find myself among the ranks of those who would have been targets of my disapproval. Usually, the articles that I merely skim lie outside my subsubspecialty areas of interest, as time constraints make this abridged reading a necessity for survival, but that excuse does not diminish the self-recognition of my often less-than-complete understanding of the clinical condition being reported. Delving into the nuances of GIACTA truly emphasized that point.

The external validity of any trial rests on understanding the trial’s methods. In the case of GIACTA, there was much more to be learned and affirmed from the trial¹ than that 1 year of tocilizumab treatment met the primary end point of increasing the percent of patients achieving sustained remission at week 52 after a rapid 26-week tapering off of prednisone compared with placebo.

One treatment group in the GIACTA trial underwent an aggressive 6-month tapering of prednisone, while another underwent a more protracted tapering over 12 months (more in line with common practice). Patients tapered over 6 months also received either the IL-6 antagonist or placebo for the full year. The concept was that if IL-6 blockade is a correct approach, then it will maintain remission in more patients, and significantly reduce the total amount of steroid needed to control the disease, despite rapid, aggressive steroid tapering. This turned out to be correct, although more than 20% of the drug-treated patients still experienced a flare of GCA (vs 68% of the placebo-treated group).

Somewhat surprising was that almost 20% of the entered patients did not achieve an initial remission despite receiving high-dose prednisone. The traditional teaching is that if a patient diagnosed with GCA does not respond to high-dose steroids, the diagnosis should be questioned.

Another interesting facet of the study relates to the diagnosis. We are becoming more aware of the different GCA phenotypes, which include prominent polymyalgia rheumatica or constitutional features, “classic” GCA with cranial symptoms, and dominant large-vessel vasculitis (aortitis and major aortic branch disease). In GIACTA, even though imaging was not mandated, 37% of participants were enrolled based in part on imaging results (CT, MRI, angiography, or PET-CT), not on the results of temporal artery biopsy. This forces us to think more broadly about diagnosing and staging GCA, and to wonder if we should even modify our approach to other clinical challenges, including unexplained fever and wasting in older patients.

Another tidbit that came out of the study relates to the relationship between the acute-phase response and clinical flares. We already knew that a rise in the erythrocyte sedimentation rate is a nonspecific sign and does not equate with a flare. In this trial one-third of patients in the placebo group who had a flare had a normal sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein during the flare, and about one-third of patients in the placebo group were receiving more than 10 mg of prednisone. In preliminary reports of follow-up after  52 weeks of treatment,² patients who had achieved complete remission with the IL-6 antagonist and were off of prednisone were still not out of the woods; when the drug was discontinued, many flares continued to occur over the 2-year study extension. We have more to learn about what triggers and drives flares in this disease.

Thus, in addition to informing us of a successful “steroid-sparing” and rescue drug option for our patients with GCA, the details of this well-conducted trial both challenge and reaffirm some of our clinical impressions. Clearly, GCA must be defined for many patients as a very chronic disease, perhaps with occult vascular reservoirs, the biologic basis of which remains to be defined.

Here are 5 articles from the July issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. Cloud of inconsistency hangs over cannabis data

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2NfjaDS
Expires February 6, 2020

2. Roux-en-Y achieves diabetes remission in majority of patients

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2x9hLnE
Expires February 6, 2020

3. Socioeconomic status, race found to impact CPAP compliance

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2RBpLa9
Expires February 8, 2020

4. Exercise type matters for fall prevention among elderly

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2X26OUh
Expires February 12, 2020

5. Adult HIV patients should receive standard vaccinations, with caveats

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2X1S7LV
Expires February 12, 2020

Here are 5 articles from the July issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. Cloud of inconsistency hangs over cannabis data

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2NfjaDS
Expires February 6, 2020

2. Roux-en-Y achieves diabetes remission in majority of patients

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2x9hLnE
Expires February 6, 2020

3. Socioeconomic status, race found to impact CPAP compliance

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2RBpLa9
Expires February 8, 2020

4. Exercise type matters for fall prevention among elderly

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2X26OUh
Expires February 12, 2020

5. Adult HIV patients should receive standard vaccinations, with caveats

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2X1S7LV
Expires February 12, 2020

Here are 5 articles from the July issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. Cloud of inconsistency hangs over cannabis data

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2NfjaDS
Expires February 6, 2020

2. Roux-en-Y achieves diabetes remission in majority of patients

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2x9hLnE
Expires February 6, 2020

3. Socioeconomic status, race found to impact CPAP compliance

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2RBpLa9
Expires February 8, 2020

4. Exercise type matters for fall prevention among elderly

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2X26OUh
Expires February 12, 2020

5. Adult HIV patients should receive standard vaccinations, with caveats

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2X1S7LV
Expires February 12, 2020

Pneumococcal vaccination with the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) based on shared clinical decision making is recommended for immunocompetent adults aged 65 years and older who have not previously received PCV13, and all adults aged 65 years and older should continue to receive the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23), according to a vote at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

bowdenimages/iStock/Getty Images

The motion passed with an 11-1 vote after members voted down two other options to either discontinue or continue the current recommendation of PCV13 for all immunocompetent adults aged 65 years and older. The current recommendation for PCV13 for adults aged 65 years and older has been in place since 2014.

The pneumococcal work group assessed indirect effects of the pediatric PCV vaccination on older adults prior to 2014 and since 2014, and what additional benefits might be expected if routine vaccination of older adults continued.

“Indirect effects have been observed in all age groups” said Almea Matanock, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. Although there were no safety concerns, the public health impact of continued vaccination of adults was minimal.

Although PCV13 resulted in a 75% reduction in vaccine-type invasive pneumococcal disease and a 45% reduction in vaccine-type nonbacteremic pneumonia in 2014, the annual number needed to vaccinate to prevent a single case of outpatient pneumonia was 2,600, said Dr. Matanock.

Dr. Matanock presented key issues from the Evidence to Recommendations Framework for and against the recommendation for PCV13 in older adults. Work group comments in favor of continuing the recommendation for PCV13 in older adults included effective disease prevention and the potential negative impact on the importance of adult vaccines if the vaccine was no longer recommended. However, some work group members and committee members expressed concern about resource allocation and steering vaccines away from younger age groups in whom they have been more consistently effective.

Paul Hunter, MD, of the City of Milwaukee Health Department, voted against the shared clinical decision making, and instead favored discontinuing the recommendation for PCV13 for older adults. “I think clinicians need a clear message,” he said, adding that “the public health bang for the buck is with the kids.”

“I think there was a recognition that the population level benefit is minimal,” said work group chair Grace Lee, MD.

Although the work group recognized some benefit for older adults, the burden of disease for PCV-specific disease is low, compared with all-cause pneumonia, said Dr. Lee of Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, Calif. However, the recommendation for shared clinical decision making allows for potential insurance coverage of the vaccine for adults who decide after discussion with their health care provider that they would benefit.

“We are still unpacking this construct” of shared clinical decision making, which in this case applies to adults without immunocompromising conditions, and is more of a provider assessment than a risk assessment, she said.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Pneumococcal vaccination with the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) based on shared clinical decision making is recommended for immunocompetent adults aged 65 years and older who have not previously received PCV13, and all adults aged 65 years and older should continue to receive the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23), according to a vote at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

bowdenimages/iStock/Getty Images

The motion passed with an 11-1 vote after members voted down two other options to either discontinue or continue the current recommendation of PCV13 for all immunocompetent adults aged 65 years and older. The current recommendation for PCV13 for adults aged 65 years and older has been in place since 2014.

The pneumococcal work group assessed indirect effects of the pediatric PCV vaccination on older adults prior to 2014 and since 2014, and what additional benefits might be expected if routine vaccination of older adults continued.

“Indirect effects have been observed in all age groups” said Almea Matanock, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. Although there were no safety concerns, the public health impact of continued vaccination of adults was minimal.

Although PCV13 resulted in a 75% reduction in vaccine-type invasive pneumococcal disease and a 45% reduction in vaccine-type nonbacteremic pneumonia in 2014, the annual number needed to vaccinate to prevent a single case of outpatient pneumonia was 2,600, said Dr. Matanock.

Dr. Matanock presented key issues from the Evidence to Recommendations Framework for and against the recommendation for PCV13 in older adults. Work group comments in favor of continuing the recommendation for PCV13 in older adults included effective disease prevention and the potential negative impact on the importance of adult vaccines if the vaccine was no longer recommended. However, some work group members and committee members expressed concern about resource allocation and steering vaccines away from younger age groups in whom they have been more consistently effective.

Paul Hunter, MD, of the City of Milwaukee Health Department, voted against the shared clinical decision making, and instead favored discontinuing the recommendation for PCV13 for older adults. “I think clinicians need a clear message,” he said, adding that “the public health bang for the buck is with the kids.”

“I think there was a recognition that the population level benefit is minimal,” said work group chair Grace Lee, MD.

Although the work group recognized some benefit for older adults, the burden of disease for PCV-specific disease is low, compared with all-cause pneumonia, said Dr. Lee of Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, Calif. However, the recommendation for shared clinical decision making allows for potential insurance coverage of the vaccine for adults who decide after discussion with their health care provider that they would benefit.

“We are still unpacking this construct” of shared clinical decision making, which in this case applies to adults without immunocompromising conditions, and is more of a provider assessment than a risk assessment, she said.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Pneumococcal vaccination with the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) based on shared clinical decision making is recommended for immunocompetent adults aged 65 years and older who have not previously received PCV13, and all adults aged 65 years and older should continue to receive the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23), according to a vote at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

bowdenimages/iStock/Getty Images

The motion passed with an 11-1 vote after members voted down two other options to either discontinue or continue the current recommendation of PCV13 for all immunocompetent adults aged 65 years and older. The current recommendation for PCV13 for adults aged 65 years and older has been in place since 2014.

The pneumococcal work group assessed indirect effects of the pediatric PCV vaccination on older adults prior to 2014 and since 2014, and what additional benefits might be expected if routine vaccination of older adults continued.

“Indirect effects have been observed in all age groups” said Almea Matanock, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. Although there were no safety concerns, the public health impact of continued vaccination of adults was minimal.

Although PCV13 resulted in a 75% reduction in vaccine-type invasive pneumococcal disease and a 45% reduction in vaccine-type nonbacteremic pneumonia in 2014, the annual number needed to vaccinate to prevent a single case of outpatient pneumonia was 2,600, said Dr. Matanock.

Dr. Matanock presented key issues from the Evidence to Recommendations Framework for and against the recommendation for PCV13 in older adults. Work group comments in favor of continuing the recommendation for PCV13 in older adults included effective disease prevention and the potential negative impact on the importance of adult vaccines if the vaccine was no longer recommended. However, some work group members and committee members expressed concern about resource allocation and steering vaccines away from younger age groups in whom they have been more consistently effective.

Paul Hunter, MD, of the City of Milwaukee Health Department, voted against the shared clinical decision making, and instead favored discontinuing the recommendation for PCV13 for older adults. “I think clinicians need a clear message,” he said, adding that “the public health bang for the buck is with the kids.”

“I think there was a recognition that the population level benefit is minimal,” said work group chair Grace Lee, MD.

Although the work group recognized some benefit for older adults, the burden of disease for PCV-specific disease is low, compared with all-cause pneumonia, said Dr. Lee of Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, Calif. However, the recommendation for shared clinical decision making allows for potential insurance coverage of the vaccine for adults who decide after discussion with their health care provider that they would benefit.

“We are still unpacking this construct” of shared clinical decision making, which in this case applies to adults without immunocompromising conditions, and is more of a provider assessment than a risk assessment, she said.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Exposures to various types of anticholinergic medications were associated with a significantly increased risk of dementia in people aged 55 years or older in a large pharmacoepidemiologic study.

Ocskaymark/Thinkstock

“This study was designed to assess the association between cumulative anticholinergic drug use and risk of dementia in a large, representative British population,” wrote Carol A. C. Coupland, PhD, of the division of primary care at the University of Nottingham (England), and colleagues. The findings were published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The researchers conducted a large nested case-control study that included 58,769 patients with dementia and 225,574 matched controls from the QResearch database in England. Each study participant was matched to five controls based on various characteristics, including sex, age, and calendar time, among others.

Prescription data related to 56 different drugs with strong anticholinergic properties, including antipsychotics, bladder antimuscarinics, antiepileptics, antiparkinson agents, and antidepressants were used to measure drug exposure. The study data were analyzed from 2016 to 2018.

“The primary exposure was the total standardized daily doses (TSDDs) of anticholinergic drugs prescribed in the 1 to 11 years prior to the date of diagnosis of dementia or equivalent date in matched controls,” Dr. Coupland and colleagues wrote.

After analysis, the researchers found that exposure to antipsychotics (adjusted odds ratio, 1.70), bladder antimuscarinics (aOR, 1.65), antiepileptics (aOR, 1.39), antiparkinson agents (aOR, 1.52), and anticholinergic antidepressants (aOR, 1.29) was associated with an increased risk of dementia after adjustment for confounding factors.

“Associations were stronger in [dementia] cases diagnosed before the age of 80 years,” the researchers noted.

However, antihistamine, antivertigo/antiemetic, skeletal muscle relaxant, gastrointestinal antispasmodic, antiarrhythmic, and antimuscarinic bronchodilator anticholinergic agents were not associated with any increased risk of dementia.

One key limitation of the study was the absence of medication compliance assessment, which could result in exposure misclassification. Dr. Coupland and colleagues acknowledged this could underestimate some associations with medication exposure.

The stronger risk of dementia found among people who had dementia before age 80 “indicates that anticholinergic drugs should be prescribed with caution in middle-aged and older people,” they concluded.

One question that remains from the current study is whether anticholinergic drugs are a definite modifiable risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, Noll L. Campbell, PharmD, of Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., and colleagues wrote in an editorial accompanying the study by Dr. Coupland and associates (JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jun 24. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0676).

While a pharmacologic basis for this association has been proposed, causation has yet to be established by means of prospective randomized studies. The current supposition is that deprescribing anticholinergic medications has the potential to positively effect cholinergic neurotransmission in certain regions of the brain, which could lead to improved cognitive functioning, and lower the likelihood of developing Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, they wrote in the editorial.

However, the discontinuation of some anticholinergic agents may pose other risks, such as worsening pain or depressive symptoms, in addition to increasing the utilization of acute care facilities. As a result, high-quality, well-designed, randomized trials are needed to better understand the long-term effects of deprescribing anticholinergic medications. These trials would help inform clinicians, patients, and policymakers about the risks and benefits of deprescribing interventions, Dr. Campbell and coauthors said.

The study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research and the University of Nottingham. The authors reported financial affiliations with ClinRisk Ltd. The authors of the editorial reported receiving support from the National Institute on Aging and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Campbell reported receiving personal fees from Astellas Pharma US.

SOURCE: Coupland C et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jun 24. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0677

Exposures to various types of anticholinergic medications were associated with a significantly increased risk of dementia in people aged 55 years or older in a large pharmacoepidemiologic study.

Ocskaymark/Thinkstock

“This study was designed to assess the association between cumulative anticholinergic drug use and risk of dementia in a large, representative British population,” wrote Carol A. C. Coupland, PhD, of the division of primary care at the University of Nottingham (England), and colleagues. The findings were published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The researchers conducted a large nested case-control study that included 58,769 patients with dementia and 225,574 matched controls from the QResearch database in England. Each study participant was matched to five controls based on various characteristics, including sex, age, and calendar time, among others.

Prescription data related to 56 different drugs with strong anticholinergic properties, including antipsychotics, bladder antimuscarinics, antiepileptics, antiparkinson agents, and antidepressants were used to measure drug exposure. The study data were analyzed from 2016 to 2018.

“The primary exposure was the total standardized daily doses (TSDDs) of anticholinergic drugs prescribed in the 1 to 11 years prior to the date of diagnosis of dementia or equivalent date in matched controls,” Dr. Coupland and colleagues wrote.

After analysis, the researchers found that exposure to antipsychotics (adjusted odds ratio, 1.70), bladder antimuscarinics (aOR, 1.65), antiepileptics (aOR, 1.39), antiparkinson agents (aOR, 1.52), and anticholinergic antidepressants (aOR, 1.29) was associated with an increased risk of dementia after adjustment for confounding factors.

“Associations were stronger in [dementia] cases diagnosed before the age of 80 years,” the researchers noted.

However, antihistamine, antivertigo/antiemetic, skeletal muscle relaxant, gastrointestinal antispasmodic, antiarrhythmic, and antimuscarinic bronchodilator anticholinergic agents were not associated with any increased risk of dementia.

One key limitation of the study was the absence of medication compliance assessment, which could result in exposure misclassification. Dr. Coupland and colleagues acknowledged this could underestimate some associations with medication exposure.

The stronger risk of dementia found among people who had dementia before age 80 “indicates that anticholinergic drugs should be prescribed with caution in middle-aged and older people,” they concluded.

One question that remains from the current study is whether anticholinergic drugs are a definite modifiable risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, Noll L. Campbell, PharmD, of Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., and colleagues wrote in an editorial accompanying the study by Dr. Coupland and associates (JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jun 24. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0676).

While a pharmacologic basis for this association has been proposed, causation has yet to be established by means of prospective randomized studies. The current supposition is that deprescribing anticholinergic medications has the potential to positively effect cholinergic neurotransmission in certain regions of the brain, which could lead to improved cognitive functioning, and lower the likelihood of developing Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, they wrote in the editorial.

However, the discontinuation of some anticholinergic agents may pose other risks, such as worsening pain or depressive symptoms, in addition to increasing the utilization of acute care facilities. As a result, high-quality, well-designed, randomized trials are needed to better understand the long-term effects of deprescribing anticholinergic medications. These trials would help inform clinicians, patients, and policymakers about the risks and benefits of deprescribing interventions, Dr. Campbell and coauthors said.

The study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research and the University of Nottingham. The authors reported financial affiliations with ClinRisk Ltd. The authors of the editorial reported receiving support from the National Institute on Aging and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Campbell reported receiving personal fees from Astellas Pharma US.

SOURCE: Coupland C et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jun 24. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0677

Exposures to various types of anticholinergic medications were associated with a significantly increased risk of dementia in people aged 55 years or older in a large pharmacoepidemiologic study.

Ocskaymark/Thinkstock

“This study was designed to assess the association between cumulative anticholinergic drug use and risk of dementia in a large, representative British population,” wrote Carol A. C. Coupland, PhD, of the division of primary care at the University of Nottingham (England), and colleagues. The findings were published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The researchers conducted a large nested case-control study that included 58,769 patients with dementia and 225,574 matched controls from the QResearch database in England. Each study participant was matched to five controls based on various characteristics, including sex, age, and calendar time, among others.

Prescription data related to 56 different drugs with strong anticholinergic properties, including antipsychotics, bladder antimuscarinics, antiepileptics, antiparkinson agents, and antidepressants were used to measure drug exposure. The study data were analyzed from 2016 to 2018.

“The primary exposure was the total standardized daily doses (TSDDs) of anticholinergic drugs prescribed in the 1 to 11 years prior to the date of diagnosis of dementia or equivalent date in matched controls,” Dr. Coupland and colleagues wrote.

After analysis, the researchers found that exposure to antipsychotics (adjusted odds ratio, 1.70), bladder antimuscarinics (aOR, 1.65), antiepileptics (aOR, 1.39), antiparkinson agents (aOR, 1.52), and anticholinergic antidepressants (aOR, 1.29) was associated with an increased risk of dementia after adjustment for confounding factors.

“Associations were stronger in [dementia] cases diagnosed before the age of 80 years,” the researchers noted.

However, antihistamine, antivertigo/antiemetic, skeletal muscle relaxant, gastrointestinal antispasmodic, antiarrhythmic, and antimuscarinic bronchodilator anticholinergic agents were not associated with any increased risk of dementia.

One key limitation of the study was the absence of medication compliance assessment, which could result in exposure misclassification. Dr. Coupland and colleagues acknowledged this could underestimate some associations with medication exposure.

The stronger risk of dementia found among people who had dementia before age 80 “indicates that anticholinergic drugs should be prescribed with caution in middle-aged and older people,” they concluded.

One question that remains from the current study is whether anticholinergic drugs are a definite modifiable risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, Noll L. Campbell, PharmD, of Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., and colleagues wrote in an editorial accompanying the study by Dr. Coupland and associates (JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jun 24. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0676).

While a pharmacologic basis for this association has been proposed, causation has yet to be established by means of prospective randomized studies. The current supposition is that deprescribing anticholinergic medications has the potential to positively effect cholinergic neurotransmission in certain regions of the brain, which could lead to improved cognitive functioning, and lower the likelihood of developing Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, they wrote in the editorial.

However, the discontinuation of some anticholinergic agents may pose other risks, such as worsening pain or depressive symptoms, in addition to increasing the utilization of acute care facilities. As a result, high-quality, well-designed, randomized trials are needed to better understand the long-term effects of deprescribing anticholinergic medications. These trials would help inform clinicians, patients, and policymakers about the risks and benefits of deprescribing interventions, Dr. Campbell and coauthors said.

The study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research and the University of Nottingham. The authors reported financial affiliations with ClinRisk Ltd. The authors of the editorial reported receiving support from the National Institute on Aging and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Campbell reported receiving personal fees from Astellas Pharma US.

SOURCE: Coupland C et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jun 24. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0677

WASHINGTON – Levothyroxine was not effective at decreasing physical fatigue in older adults with hypothyroidism, according to a new study.

Jennifer Reising/MDedge News

The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial used subsets of data from the TRUST study. This new research, which was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine, provides further evidence that prescribing levothyroxine to older patients with subclinical hypothyroidism will not reduce fatigue.

Like the findings in the TRUST study, the new study, “Effect of Thyroid Hormone Replacement on Fatigability in Older Adults with Subclinical Hypothyroidism: A Randomized Placebo Controlled Trial,” showed that the use of levothyroxine in subclinical hypothyroidism was not effective in changing physical and mental fatigability in older adults.

“This study shows that levothyroxine treatment may not be necessary and results in high costs and side effects,” noted Mirah Stuber, MD, during her presentation of the findings at the meeting.

The new study examined the effect of levothyroxine on the tiredness of older adults but with a more detailed analysis of fatigue than the full TRUST study provided. In this new study, investigators used a new assessment tool, called the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale (PFS), a 10-item self-administered questionnaire that can measure both physical and mental fatigability. Perceived fatigability anchors tiredness to a set of activities and has been shown to be a more sensitive measure than global fatigue, explained Dr. Stuber of the University of Chicago.

The scores range from 0-50, with higher scores indicating higher fatigability. The scales were divided between mental and physical activities and measured fatigue in relation to a defined activity of a specific duration and intensity. These activities included a leisurely 30-minute walk and participation in a 1-hour social activity.

This study involved 230 participants from Switzerland and Ireland, with a mean age of 73.4 years, who had persistent hypothyroidism. The population was randomized to 119 patients who were administered levothyroxine and 111 patients who received a placebo.

At baseline, the levothyroxine group had a mean physical PFS score of 14.7 ± 9.3, and the placebo group had a score of 11.1 ± 9.1. The baseline mean mental PFS score for the levothyroxine group was 7.4 ± 8.0, while it was 5.1 ± 6.9 for the placebo group.

After 12 months of the participants’ use of levothyroxine or placebo, the physical PFS scores increased for both the treatment and placebo groups. For the levothyroxine group, the mean physical PFS score was 14.8 ± 9.6, while it was 12.4 ± 9.3 for the placebo group (P = 0.88). The investigators found no significant differences between these scores for the levothyroxine and placebo groups.

The mean mental PFS score slightly decreased to 6.0 ± 7.8 for the levothyroxine group, while it slightly increased to 6.0 ± 8.0 for the placebo group (P = 0.26) at 12 months. The difference between the mental fatigability scores for the levothyroxine and placebo arms at 12 months was also not significant.

The physical fatigability between-group difference was 0.2 (95% confidence interval, –1.8 to 2.1; P = 0.88), while the mental fatigability difference was –1.0 (95% CI, –2.8 to 0.8; P = 0.26).

The study was funded by the European Union FP7 and the Swiss National Science Foundation. Merck KGaA, Darmstadt (Germany) provided levothyroxine and the placebo. Dr. Stuber has no conflicts of interest.

WASHINGTON – Levothyroxine was not effective at decreasing physical fatigue in older adults with hypothyroidism, according to a new study.

Jennifer Reising/MDedge News

The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial used subsets of data from the TRUST study. This new research, which was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine, provides further evidence that prescribing levothyroxine to older patients with subclinical hypothyroidism will not reduce fatigue.

Like the findings in the TRUST study, the new study, “Effect of Thyroid Hormone Replacement on Fatigability in Older Adults with Subclinical Hypothyroidism: A Randomized Placebo Controlled Trial,” showed that the use of levothyroxine in subclinical hypothyroidism was not effective in changing physical and mental fatigability in older adults.

“This study shows that levothyroxine treatment may not be necessary and results in high costs and side effects,” noted Mirah Stuber, MD, during her presentation of the findings at the meeting.

The new study examined the effect of levothyroxine on the tiredness of older adults but with a more detailed analysis of fatigue than the full TRUST study provided. In this new study, investigators used a new assessment tool, called the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale (PFS), a 10-item self-administered questionnaire that can measure both physical and mental fatigability. Perceived fatigability anchors tiredness to a set of activities and has been shown to be a more sensitive measure than global fatigue, explained Dr. Stuber of the University of Chicago.

The scores range from 0-50, with higher scores indicating higher fatigability. The scales were divided between mental and physical activities and measured fatigue in relation to a defined activity of a specific duration and intensity. These activities included a leisurely 30-minute walk and participation in a 1-hour social activity.

This study involved 230 participants from Switzerland and Ireland, with a mean age of 73.4 years, who had persistent hypothyroidism. The population was randomized to 119 patients who were administered levothyroxine and 111 patients who received a placebo.

At baseline, the levothyroxine group had a mean physical PFS score of 14.7 ± 9.3, and the placebo group had a score of 11.1 ± 9.1. The baseline mean mental PFS score for the levothyroxine group was 7.4 ± 8.0, while it was 5.1 ± 6.9 for the placebo group.

After 12 months of the participants’ use of levothyroxine or placebo, the physical PFS scores increased for both the treatment and placebo groups. For the levothyroxine group, the mean physical PFS score was 14.8 ± 9.6, while it was 12.4 ± 9.3 for the placebo group (P = 0.88). The investigators found no significant differences between these scores for the levothyroxine and placebo groups.

The mean mental PFS score slightly decreased to 6.0 ± 7.8 for the levothyroxine group, while it slightly increased to 6.0 ± 8.0 for the placebo group (P = 0.26) at 12 months. The difference between the mental fatigability scores for the levothyroxine and placebo arms at 12 months was also not significant.

The physical fatigability between-group difference was 0.2 (95% confidence interval, –1.8 to 2.1; P = 0.88), while the mental fatigability difference was –1.0 (95% CI, –2.8 to 0.8; P = 0.26).

The study was funded by the European Union FP7 and the Swiss National Science Foundation. Merck KGaA, Darmstadt (Germany) provided levothyroxine and the placebo. Dr. Stuber has no conflicts of interest.

WASHINGTON – Levothyroxine was not effective at decreasing physical fatigue in older adults with hypothyroidism, according to a new study.

Jennifer Reising/MDedge News

The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial used subsets of data from the TRUST study. This new research, which was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine, provides further evidence that prescribing levothyroxine to older patients with subclinical hypothyroidism will not reduce fatigue.

Like the findings in the TRUST study, the new study, “Effect of Thyroid Hormone Replacement on Fatigability in Older Adults with Subclinical Hypothyroidism: A Randomized Placebo Controlled Trial,” showed that the use of levothyroxine in subclinical hypothyroidism was not effective in changing physical and mental fatigability in older adults.

“This study shows that levothyroxine treatment may not be necessary and results in high costs and side effects,” noted Mirah Stuber, MD, during her presentation of the findings at the meeting.

The new study examined the effect of levothyroxine on the tiredness of older adults but with a more detailed analysis of fatigue than the full TRUST study provided. In this new study, investigators used a new assessment tool, called the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale (PFS), a 10-item self-administered questionnaire that can measure both physical and mental fatigability. Perceived fatigability anchors tiredness to a set of activities and has been shown to be a more sensitive measure than global fatigue, explained Dr. Stuber of the University of Chicago.

The scores range from 0-50, with higher scores indicating higher fatigability. The scales were divided between mental and physical activities and measured fatigue in relation to a defined activity of a specific duration and intensity. These activities included a leisurely 30-minute walk and participation in a 1-hour social activity.

This study involved 230 participants from Switzerland and Ireland, with a mean age of 73.4 years, who had persistent hypothyroidism. The population was randomized to 119 patients who were administered levothyroxine and 111 patients who received a placebo.

At baseline, the levothyroxine group had a mean physical PFS score of 14.7 ± 9.3, and the placebo group had a score of 11.1 ± 9.1. The baseline mean mental PFS score for the levothyroxine group was 7.4 ± 8.0, while it was 5.1 ± 6.9 for the placebo group.

After 12 months of the participants’ use of levothyroxine or placebo, the physical PFS scores increased for both the treatment and placebo groups. For the levothyroxine group, the mean physical PFS score was 14.8 ± 9.6, while it was 12.4 ± 9.3 for the placebo group (P = 0.88). The investigators found no significant differences between these scores for the levothyroxine and placebo groups.

The mean mental PFS score slightly decreased to 6.0 ± 7.8 for the levothyroxine group, while it slightly increased to 6.0 ± 8.0 for the placebo group (P = 0.26) at 12 months. The difference between the mental fatigability scores for the levothyroxine and placebo arms at 12 months was also not significant.

The physical fatigability between-group difference was 0.2 (95% confidence interval, –1.8 to 2.1; P = 0.88), while the mental fatigability difference was –1.0 (95% CI, –2.8 to 0.8; P = 0.26).

The study was funded by the European Union FP7 and the Swiss National Science Foundation. Merck KGaA, Darmstadt (Germany) provided levothyroxine and the placebo. Dr. Stuber has no conflicts of interest.

Adding the amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration (A/T/N) model of dementia to a clinical model may give an incremental but still significantly increased ability to predict cognitive decline over nearly 5 years, according to findings from a longitudinal cohort study of patients without dementia at baseline.

Courtesy Mayo Clinic

Although the A/T/N model is still intended only for research purposes, the study came to another important conclusion: About 50% of the memory change associated with normal aging was, in fact, caused by changes associated with Alzheimer’s disease, Clifford R. Jack Jr., MD, and colleagues wrote in JAMA.

The three groups with the fastest rates of memory decline all had abnormal amyloid and either abnormal tau and/or imaging signs of neurodegeneration. “This illustrated a dominant association of memory decline with amyloidosis but only when present in combination with tauopathy, neurodegeneration, or both,” Dr. Jack of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and coauthors wrote.

A/T/N, also known as the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association Research Framework, is based on objective amyloid and tau biomarkers and imaging markers of neurodegeneration and is intended to more accurately differentiate Alzheimer’s from other dementias and, potentially, to stage the disease and predict and track decline. It generates eight clinical profiles that can identify Alzheimer’s, rule it out, or include it as a possible diagnosis.

The study comprised 480 elderly individuals enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. Median age of the participants ranged from 67 years in one of the eight clinical profiles (A–/T–/N–) to 83 years in another (A+/T+/N+). Most (92%) were cognitively normal; the remainder had mild cognitive impairment (MCI). They were followed for a median of 4.8 years.

Both amyloid and tau were measured with PET imaging; neuropathology was represented by MRI scans of cortical thickness. Most (n = 140) were negative for all biomarkers (A–/T–/N–). The group positive for all markers (A+/T+/N+) had the largest proportion of MCI subjects (30%). The apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 (APOE4) genotype was more common among the A+ groups than it was among the A– groups (40% vs. 21%).

The individual cognitive decline trajectories varied considerably by age and within each classification group. Only 7% of the A–/T–/N– group were 80 years or older, and only 2% of the A+/N+/T+ group were younger than 70 years.

In a clinical model, age and APOE4 status were significantly associated with faster rates of memory decline. Sex, education, and a cardiovascular/metabolic model were not, however.

“The estimated rate of memory decline in a 75-year-old individual who was an APOE4 noncarrier was –0.04 z-score units per year,” the authors wrote. “An 85-year-old individual who was also an APOE4 noncarrier could be expected to have a decline of –0.08 units per year, while a 75-year-old E4 carrier could be expected to have a decline of –0.08 units per year.”

Every 10 years of additional age was associated with a significant median worsening of 0.4 on z score for memory. A 4-year difference in education was associated with a 0.6-unit higher memory score, while APOE4 carriers had a 0.3-unit lower memory score.

The addition of the A/T/N model significantly improved the prediction of cognitive decline and memory score, although the rates of decline were still considerably variable. All of the A+ groups had the fastest decline rates.

“To place the predictive utility of biomarkers in clinical context, the decline in rates of memory for A+/T+/N–, A+/T–/N+, A+/T+/N+ [abnormal amyloid plus tau or neurodegeneration] were of similar magnitude to a 20-year increase in age and were twice that associated with APOE4 carriership,” they wrote.

A total of 88 participants had a second imaging visit at a median of 15 months. Most (n = 72) had no change in the A/T/N classification. A and T classifications were more stable (98% and 97%, respectively) than was N classification (84%).

A secondary analysis compared this model with generally accepted clinical and biomarker characteristics. Prior research has shown that prevalence of abnormal A/T/N biomarker groups increased with age in the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. The mean annual memory z-score in this cohort at 60 years was 0.02, which dropped to 0.11 by age 90.

“Forty-six percent of this increase in decline rate [–0.06] was partitioned to the increasing prevalence of abnormal A/T/N profiles, while the remaining decline [–0.07] was partitioned to age,” the investigators reported.

While A+ subjects were most likely to decline, the A+/T–/N+ group presents a conundrum, the team wrote. “A possible explanation is that these individuals have early Alzheimer’s disease [denoted by A+T–] plus neurodegeneration due to comorbid non–Alzheimer’s disease neuropathic changes.”

This is an important point because the cognitive decline of Alzheimer’s is thought to be largely associated with tauopathy, not amyloidosis. “One possible explanation is an effect of subthreshold tau in A+/T–/N+ individuals, but this is speculative. Clearer understanding of the neuropathologic bases for the A+/T–/N+ group, as well as other A/T/N groups, awaits future biomarker-autopsy correlation studies.”

msullivan@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Jack CR et al. JAMA 2019;321:2316-25.

Adding the amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration (A/T/N) model of dementia to a clinical model may give an incremental but still significantly increased ability to predict cognitive decline over nearly 5 years, according to findings from a longitudinal cohort study of patients without dementia at baseline.

Courtesy Mayo Clinic

Although the A/T/N model is still intended only for research purposes, the study came to another important conclusion: About 50% of the memory change associated with normal aging was, in fact, caused by changes associated with Alzheimer’s disease, Clifford R. Jack Jr., MD, and colleagues wrote in JAMA.

The three groups with the fastest rates of memory decline all had abnormal amyloid and either abnormal tau and/or imaging signs of neurodegeneration. “This illustrated a dominant association of memory decline with amyloidosis but only when present in combination with tauopathy, neurodegeneration, or both,” Dr. Jack of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and coauthors wrote.

A/T/N, also known as the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association Research Framework, is based on objective amyloid and tau biomarkers and imaging markers of neurodegeneration and is intended to more accurately differentiate Alzheimer’s from other dementias and, potentially, to stage the disease and predict and track decline. It generates eight clinical profiles that can identify Alzheimer’s, rule it out, or include it as a possible diagnosis.

The study comprised 480 elderly individuals enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. Median age of the participants ranged from 67 years in one of the eight clinical profiles (A–/T–/N–) to 83 years in another (A+/T+/N+). Most (92%) were cognitively normal; the remainder had mild cognitive impairment (MCI). They were followed for a median of 4.8 years.

Both amyloid and tau were measured with PET imaging; neuropathology was represented by MRI scans of cortical thickness. Most (n = 140) were negative for all biomarkers (A–/T–/N–). The group positive for all markers (A+/T+/N+) had the largest proportion of MCI subjects (30%). The apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 (APOE4) genotype was more common among the A+ groups than it was among the A– groups (40% vs. 21%).

The individual cognitive decline trajectories varied considerably by age and within each classification group. Only 7% of the A–/T–/N– group were 80 years or older, and only 2% of the A+/N+/T+ group were younger than 70 years.

In a clinical model, age and APOE4 status were significantly associated with faster rates of memory decline. Sex, education, and a cardiovascular/metabolic model were not, however.

“The estimated rate of memory decline in a 75-year-old individual who was an APOE4 noncarrier was –0.04 z-score units per year,” the authors wrote. “An 85-year-old individual who was also an APOE4 noncarrier could be expected to have a decline of –0.08 units per year, while a 75-year-old E4 carrier could be expected to have a decline of –0.08 units per year.”

Every 10 years of additional age was associated with a significant median worsening of 0.4 on z score for memory. A 4-year difference in education was associated with a 0.6-unit higher memory score, while APOE4 carriers had a 0.3-unit lower memory score.

The addition of the A/T/N model significantly improved the prediction of cognitive decline and memory score, although the rates of decline were still considerably variable. All of the A+ groups had the fastest decline rates.

“To place the predictive utility of biomarkers in clinical context, the decline in rates of memory for A+/T+/N–, A+/T–/N+, A+/T+/N+ [abnormal amyloid plus tau or neurodegeneration] were of similar magnitude to a 20-year increase in age and were twice that associated with APOE4 carriership,” they wrote.

A total of 88 participants had a second imaging visit at a median of 15 months. Most (n = 72) had no change in the A/T/N classification. A and T classifications were more stable (98% and 97%, respectively) than was N classification (84%).

A secondary analysis compared this model with generally accepted clinical and biomarker characteristics. Prior research has shown that prevalence of abnormal A/T/N biomarker groups increased with age in the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. The mean annual memory z-score in this cohort at 60 years was 0.02, which dropped to 0.11 by age 90.

“Forty-six percent of this increase in decline rate [–0.06] was partitioned to the increasing prevalence of abnormal A/T/N profiles, while the remaining decline [–0.07] was partitioned to age,” the investigators reported.

While A+ subjects were most likely to decline, the A+/T–/N+ group presents a conundrum, the team wrote. “A possible explanation is that these individuals have early Alzheimer’s disease [denoted by A+T–] plus neurodegeneration due to comorbid non–Alzheimer’s disease neuropathic changes.”

This is an important point because the cognitive decline of Alzheimer’s is thought to be largely associated with tauopathy, not amyloidosis. “One possible explanation is an effect of subthreshold tau in A+/T–/N+ individuals, but this is speculative. Clearer understanding of the neuropathologic bases for the A+/T–/N+ group, as well as other A/T/N groups, awaits future biomarker-autopsy correlation studies.”

msullivan@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Jack CR et al. JAMA 2019;321:2316-25.

Adding the amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration (A/T/N) model of dementia to a clinical model may give an incremental but still significantly increased ability to predict cognitive decline over nearly 5 years, according to findings from a longitudinal cohort study of patients without dementia at baseline.

Courtesy Mayo Clinic

Although the A/T/N model is still intended only for research purposes, the study came to another important conclusion: About 50% of the memory change associated with normal aging was, in fact, caused by changes associated with Alzheimer’s disease, Clifford R. Jack Jr., MD, and colleagues wrote in JAMA.

The three groups with the fastest rates of memory decline all had abnormal amyloid and either abnormal tau and/or imaging signs of neurodegeneration. “This illustrated a dominant association of memory decline with amyloidosis but only when present in combination with tauopathy, neurodegeneration, or both,” Dr. Jack of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and coauthors wrote.

A/T/N, also known as the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association Research Framework, is based on objective amyloid and tau biomarkers and imaging markers of neurodegeneration and is intended to more accurately differentiate Alzheimer’s from other dementias and, potentially, to stage the disease and predict and track decline. It generates eight clinical profiles that can identify Alzheimer’s, rule it out, or include it as a possible diagnosis.

The study comprised 480 elderly individuals enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. Median age of the participants ranged from 67 years in one of the eight clinical profiles (A–/T–/N–) to 83 years in another (A+/T+/N+). Most (92%) were cognitively normal; the remainder had mild cognitive impairment (MCI). They were followed for a median of 4.8 years.

Both amyloid and tau were measured with PET imaging; neuropathology was represented by MRI scans of cortical thickness. Most (n = 140) were negative for all biomarkers (A–/T–/N–). The group positive for all markers (A+/T+/N+) had the largest proportion of MCI subjects (30%). The apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 (APOE4) genotype was more common among the A+ groups than it was among the A– groups (40% vs. 21%).

The individual cognitive decline trajectories varied considerably by age and within each classification group. Only 7% of the A–/T–/N– group were 80 years or older, and only 2% of the A+/N+/T+ group were younger than 70 years.

In a clinical model, age and APOE4 status were significantly associated with faster rates of memory decline. Sex, education, and a cardiovascular/metabolic model were not, however.

“The estimated rate of memory decline in a 75-year-old individual who was an APOE4 noncarrier was –0.04 z-score units per year,” the authors wrote. “An 85-year-old individual who was also an APOE4 noncarrier could be expected to have a decline of –0.08 units per year, while a 75-year-old E4 carrier could be expected to have a decline of –0.08 units per year.”

Every 10 years of additional age was associated with a significant median worsening of 0.4 on z score for memory. A 4-year difference in education was associated with a 0.6-unit higher memory score, while APOE4 carriers had a 0.3-unit lower memory score.

The addition of the A/T/N model significantly improved the prediction of cognitive decline and memory score, although the rates of decline were still considerably variable. All of the A+ groups had the fastest decline rates.

“To place the predictive utility of biomarkers in clinical context, the decline in rates of memory for A+/T+/N–, A+/T–/N+, A+/T+/N+ [abnormal amyloid plus tau or neurodegeneration] were of similar magnitude to a 20-year increase in age and were twice that associated with APOE4 carriership,” they wrote.

A total of 88 participants had a second imaging visit at a median of 15 months. Most (n = 72) had no change in the A/T/N classification. A and T classifications were more stable (98% and 97%, respectively) than was N classification (84%).

A secondary analysis compared this model with generally accepted clinical and biomarker characteristics. Prior research has shown that prevalence of abnormal A/T/N biomarker groups increased with age in the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. The mean annual memory z-score in this cohort at 60 years was 0.02, which dropped to 0.11 by age 90.

“Forty-six percent of this increase in decline rate [–0.06] was partitioned to the increasing prevalence of abnormal A/T/N profiles, while the remaining decline [–0.07] was partitioned to age,” the investigators reported.

While A+ subjects were most likely to decline, the A+/T–/N+ group presents a conundrum, the team wrote. “A possible explanation is that these individuals have early Alzheimer’s disease [denoted by A+T–] plus neurodegeneration due to comorbid non–Alzheimer’s disease neuropathic changes.”

This is an important point because the cognitive decline of Alzheimer’s is thought to be largely associated with tauopathy, not amyloidosis. “One possible explanation is an effect of subthreshold tau in A+/T–/N+ individuals, but this is speculative. Clearer understanding of the neuropathologic bases for the A+/T–/N+ group, as well as other A/T/N groups, awaits future biomarker-autopsy correlation studies.”

msullivan@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Jack CR et al. JAMA 2019;321:2316-25.