Megan Brooks

As monotherapy, the experimental drug REL-1017 (Relmada Therapeutics) has failed to show statistically significant improvement in depression symptoms compared with placebo in topline results from the phase 3 RELIANCE III trial.

The negative monotherapy data come on the heels of earlier phase 2 data showing a benefit of REL-1017 when used as add-on therapy for adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).

Despite the monotherapy results, Relmada reported in a release that it is continuing to enroll patients in two other phase 3 trials. However, RELIANCE I and RELIANCE II are assessing the drug only as adjunctive therapy.

“While these RELIANCE III results are disappointing for patients, the need for new, safe, and effective treatments for MDD continues to exist,” Maurizio Fava, MD, psychiatrist in chief at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in the release.

“We look forward to the data from the ongoing RELIANCE I and II trials of REL-1017, a potential new therapy for the adjunctive treatment of MDD,” Dr. Fava added.

REL-1017 is a novel N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor channel blocker that preferentially targets hyperactive channels while maintaining physiologic glutamatergic neurotransmission. RELIANCE III tested REL-1017 against placebo for 28 days in 232 adults with MDD.

The study did not achieve its primary endpoint, which was a statistically significant improvement in symptoms of depression compared with placebo, as measured by the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) on day 28.

At that time point, the REL-1017 treatment group showed a reduction in MADRS scores of 14.8 points, vs. 13.9 points for the placebo arm.

The placebo response was “higher than expected” – placebo “dramatically” outperformed REL-1017 at some study sites, Relmada said in the release.

The company added that it is “investigating the nature of these results.”

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

As monotherapy, the experimental drug REL-1017 (Relmada Therapeutics) has failed to show statistically significant improvement in depression symptoms compared with placebo in topline results from the phase 3 RELIANCE III trial.

The negative monotherapy data come on the heels of earlier phase 2 data showing a benefit of REL-1017 when used as add-on therapy for adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).

Despite the monotherapy results, Relmada reported in a release that it is continuing to enroll patients in two other phase 3 trials. However, RELIANCE I and RELIANCE II are assessing the drug only as adjunctive therapy.

“While these RELIANCE III results are disappointing for patients, the need for new, safe, and effective treatments for MDD continues to exist,” Maurizio Fava, MD, psychiatrist in chief at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in the release.

“We look forward to the data from the ongoing RELIANCE I and II trials of REL-1017, a potential new therapy for the adjunctive treatment of MDD,” Dr. Fava added.

REL-1017 is a novel N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor channel blocker that preferentially targets hyperactive channels while maintaining physiologic glutamatergic neurotransmission. RELIANCE III tested REL-1017 against placebo for 28 days in 232 adults with MDD.

The study did not achieve its primary endpoint, which was a statistically significant improvement in symptoms of depression compared with placebo, as measured by the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) on day 28.

At that time point, the REL-1017 treatment group showed a reduction in MADRS scores of 14.8 points, vs. 13.9 points for the placebo arm.

The placebo response was “higher than expected” – placebo “dramatically” outperformed REL-1017 at some study sites, Relmada said in the release.

The company added that it is “investigating the nature of these results.”

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

As monotherapy, the experimental drug REL-1017 (Relmada Therapeutics) has failed to show statistically significant improvement in depression symptoms compared with placebo in topline results from the phase 3 RELIANCE III trial.

The negative monotherapy data come on the heels of earlier phase 2 data showing a benefit of REL-1017 when used as add-on therapy for adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).

Despite the monotherapy results, Relmada reported in a release that it is continuing to enroll patients in two other phase 3 trials. However, RELIANCE I and RELIANCE II are assessing the drug only as adjunctive therapy.

“While these RELIANCE III results are disappointing for patients, the need for new, safe, and effective treatments for MDD continues to exist,” Maurizio Fava, MD, psychiatrist in chief at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in the release.

“We look forward to the data from the ongoing RELIANCE I and II trials of REL-1017, a potential new therapy for the adjunctive treatment of MDD,” Dr. Fava added.

REL-1017 is a novel N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor channel blocker that preferentially targets hyperactive channels while maintaining physiologic glutamatergic neurotransmission. RELIANCE III tested REL-1017 against placebo for 28 days in 232 adults with MDD.

The study did not achieve its primary endpoint, which was a statistically significant improvement in symptoms of depression compared with placebo, as measured by the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) on day 28.

At that time point, the REL-1017 treatment group showed a reduction in MADRS scores of 14.8 points, vs. 13.9 points for the placebo arm.

The placebo response was “higher than expected” – placebo “dramatically” outperformed REL-1017 at some study sites, Relmada said in the release.

The company added that it is “investigating the nature of these results.”

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

The COVID-19 pandemic fueled a sharp uptick in deaths related to chronic liver disease and cirrhosis among people with diabetes, largely owing to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and alcohol-related liver disease (ALD), new data show.

“Our observations confirm that COVID-19 had a higher likelihood of impacting vulnerable populations with pre-existing chronic liver diseases and diabetes, with a death rate as high as 10% in individuals with co-existing chronic liver disease and diabetes,” write the authors.

“The inability to attend regular outpatient clinics for close monitoring and treatment accompanied by diversion of health care resources to COVID-19 care may have resulted in the suboptimal or delayed clinical care of individuals with diabetes and chronic liver disease during the COVID-19 pandemic,” they add.

Donghee Kim, MD, PhD, with the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, and colleagues report their findings in the journal Digestive and Liver Disease.
 

Vulnerable group

The researchers used U.S. national mortality data (2017-2020) to estimate chronic liver disease–related mortality trends among individuals with diabetes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Before the pandemic, the quarterly mortality for chronic liver disease remained stable (quarterly percentage change, 0.6%) but then sharply increased during the pandemic (QPC, 8.6%).

A similar trend was seen with cirrhosis-related mortality (QPC, 0.3% before the pandemic vs. 8.4% during the pandemic).

NAFLD and ALD mortality among individuals with diabetes was steadily increasing before the pandemic (QPC, 4.2% and 3.5%, respectively) but showed a more rapid increase during the pandemic (QPC, 9.6% and 7.7%, respectively).

ALD-related mortality in men was more than threefold higher than in women, while NAFLD-related mortality in women was more than twofold higher than in men.

Mortality for hepatitis C virus infection declined before the pandemic (QPC, −3.3%) and remained stable during the pandemic.

COVID-19–related mortality among adults with chronic liver disease and diabetes also rose sharply during the pandemic – from 0.4% in the first quarter of 2020 to 12.9% in the last quarter of 2020 – with no considerable difference between men and women.
 

Blame it on lockdowns?

Dr. Kim and colleagues say research is needed to better understand the direct and indirect influence of COVID-19 on coexisting chronic liver disease and diabetes.

“It is plausible that psychosocial stress and a higher predisposition to psychiatric disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic can increase the risk of alcohol use disorder and ALD,” they write.

“Furthermore, it is prudent to suspect that COVID-19–related lockdowns may increase the risk of obesity, leading to a higher risk of insulin resistance and metabolic complications, including diabetes and NAFLD. Future studies are needed to improve our understanding of these possible pathogenetic links. More importantly, emergency preparedness or contingency plans must be in place to continue and provide uninterrupted care for chronic ailments during times of disaster,” they add.

The study had no specific funding. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic fueled a sharp uptick in deaths related to chronic liver disease and cirrhosis among people with diabetes, largely owing to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and alcohol-related liver disease (ALD), new data show.

“Our observations confirm that COVID-19 had a higher likelihood of impacting vulnerable populations with pre-existing chronic liver diseases and diabetes, with a death rate as high as 10% in individuals with co-existing chronic liver disease and diabetes,” write the authors.

“The inability to attend regular outpatient clinics for close monitoring and treatment accompanied by diversion of health care resources to COVID-19 care may have resulted in the suboptimal or delayed clinical care of individuals with diabetes and chronic liver disease during the COVID-19 pandemic,” they add.

Donghee Kim, MD, PhD, with the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, and colleagues report their findings in the journal Digestive and Liver Disease.
 

Vulnerable group

The researchers used U.S. national mortality data (2017-2020) to estimate chronic liver disease–related mortality trends among individuals with diabetes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Before the pandemic, the quarterly mortality for chronic liver disease remained stable (quarterly percentage change, 0.6%) but then sharply increased during the pandemic (QPC, 8.6%).

A similar trend was seen with cirrhosis-related mortality (QPC, 0.3% before the pandemic vs. 8.4% during the pandemic).

NAFLD and ALD mortality among individuals with diabetes was steadily increasing before the pandemic (QPC, 4.2% and 3.5%, respectively) but showed a more rapid increase during the pandemic (QPC, 9.6% and 7.7%, respectively).

ALD-related mortality in men was more than threefold higher than in women, while NAFLD-related mortality in women was more than twofold higher than in men.

Mortality for hepatitis C virus infection declined before the pandemic (QPC, −3.3%) and remained stable during the pandemic.

COVID-19–related mortality among adults with chronic liver disease and diabetes also rose sharply during the pandemic – from 0.4% in the first quarter of 2020 to 12.9% in the last quarter of 2020 – with no considerable difference between men and women.
 

Blame it on lockdowns?

Dr. Kim and colleagues say research is needed to better understand the direct and indirect influence of COVID-19 on coexisting chronic liver disease and diabetes.

“It is plausible that psychosocial stress and a higher predisposition to psychiatric disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic can increase the risk of alcohol use disorder and ALD,” they write.

“Furthermore, it is prudent to suspect that COVID-19–related lockdowns may increase the risk of obesity, leading to a higher risk of insulin resistance and metabolic complications, including diabetes and NAFLD. Future studies are needed to improve our understanding of these possible pathogenetic links. More importantly, emergency preparedness or contingency plans must be in place to continue and provide uninterrupted care for chronic ailments during times of disaster,” they add.

The study had no specific funding. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic fueled a sharp uptick in deaths related to chronic liver disease and cirrhosis among people with diabetes, largely owing to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and alcohol-related liver disease (ALD), new data show.

“Our observations confirm that COVID-19 had a higher likelihood of impacting vulnerable populations with pre-existing chronic liver diseases and diabetes, with a death rate as high as 10% in individuals with co-existing chronic liver disease and diabetes,” write the authors.

“The inability to attend regular outpatient clinics for close monitoring and treatment accompanied by diversion of health care resources to COVID-19 care may have resulted in the suboptimal or delayed clinical care of individuals with diabetes and chronic liver disease during the COVID-19 pandemic,” they add.

Donghee Kim, MD, PhD, with the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, and colleagues report their findings in the journal Digestive and Liver Disease.
 

Vulnerable group

The researchers used U.S. national mortality data (2017-2020) to estimate chronic liver disease–related mortality trends among individuals with diabetes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Before the pandemic, the quarterly mortality for chronic liver disease remained stable (quarterly percentage change, 0.6%) but then sharply increased during the pandemic (QPC, 8.6%).

A similar trend was seen with cirrhosis-related mortality (QPC, 0.3% before the pandemic vs. 8.4% during the pandemic).

NAFLD and ALD mortality among individuals with diabetes was steadily increasing before the pandemic (QPC, 4.2% and 3.5%, respectively) but showed a more rapid increase during the pandemic (QPC, 9.6% and 7.7%, respectively).

ALD-related mortality in men was more than threefold higher than in women, while NAFLD-related mortality in women was more than twofold higher than in men.

Mortality for hepatitis C virus infection declined before the pandemic (QPC, −3.3%) and remained stable during the pandemic.

COVID-19–related mortality among adults with chronic liver disease and diabetes also rose sharply during the pandemic – from 0.4% in the first quarter of 2020 to 12.9% in the last quarter of 2020 – with no considerable difference between men and women.
 

Blame it on lockdowns?

Dr. Kim and colleagues say research is needed to better understand the direct and indirect influence of COVID-19 on coexisting chronic liver disease and diabetes.

“It is plausible that psychosocial stress and a higher predisposition to psychiatric disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic can increase the risk of alcohol use disorder and ALD,” they write.

“Furthermore, it is prudent to suspect that COVID-19–related lockdowns may increase the risk of obesity, leading to a higher risk of insulin resistance and metabolic complications, including diabetes and NAFLD. Future studies are needed to improve our understanding of these possible pathogenetic links. More importantly, emergency preparedness or contingency plans must be in place to continue and provide uninterrupted care for chronic ailments during times of disaster,” they add.

The study had no specific funding. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contrary to some prior studies, new research suggests that a healthy diet, including the Mediterranean diet, does not reduce dementia risk.

After adjusting for relevant demographic and other lifestyle measures, there was no association between adherence to healthy dietary advice or the Mediterranean diet on the future risk of dementia or amyloid-beta (Abeta) accumulation.

OksanaKiian/Getty Images

“While our study does not rule out a possible association between diet and dementia, we did not find a link in our study, which had a long follow-up period, included younger participants than some other studies and did not require people to remember what foods they had eaten regularly years before,” study investigator Isabelle Glans, MD, of Lund (Sweden) University, said in a news release.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

No risk reduction

Several studies have investigated how dietary habits affect dementia risk, with inconsistent results.

The new findings are based on 28,025 adults (61% women; mean age, 58 years at baseline) who were free of dementia at baseline and were followed over a 20-year period as part of the Swedish Malmö Diet and Cancer Study. Dietary habits were assessed with a 7-day food diary, detailed food frequency questionnaire, and in-person interview.

During follow-up, 1,943 individuals (6.9%) developed dementia.

Compared with those who did not develop dementia, those who did develop dementia during follow-up were older and had a lower level of education and more cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities at baseline.

Individuals who adhered to conventional healthy dietary recommendations did not have a lower risk of developing all-cause dementia (hazard ratio comparing worst with best adherence, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.08), Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.85-1.23) or vascular dementia (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.69-1.26).

Adherence to the modified Mediterranean diet also did not appear to lower the risk of all-cause dementia (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.75-1.15), Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.68-1.19), or vascular dementia (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.65-1.55).

There was also no significant association between diet and Alzheimer’s disease–related pathology, as measured by cerebrospinal fluid analysis of Abeta42 in a subgroup of 738 participants. Various sensitivity analyses yielded similar results.
 

Diet still matters

The authors of an accompanying editorial noted that diet as a “singular factor may not have a strong enough effect on cognition, but is more likely to be considered as one factor embedded with various others, the sum of which may influence the course of cognitive function (diet, regular exercise, vascular risk factor control, avoiding cigarette smoking, drinking alcohol in moderation, etc).

“Diet should not be forgotten and it still matters” but should be regarded as “one part of a multidomain intervention with respect to cognitive performance,” wrote Nils Peters, MD, with the University of Basel (Switzerland), and Benedetta Nacmias, PhD, with the University of Florence (Italy)).

“Key questions that remain include how to provide evidence for promoting the implications of dietary habits on cognition? Overall, dietary strategies will most likely be implicated either in order to reduce the increasing number of older subjects with dementia, or to extend healthy life expectancy, or both,” Dr. Peters and Dr. Nacmias said.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Glans, Dr. Peters, and Dr. Nacmias disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contrary to some prior studies, new research suggests that a healthy diet, including the Mediterranean diet, does not reduce dementia risk.

After adjusting for relevant demographic and other lifestyle measures, there was no association between adherence to healthy dietary advice or the Mediterranean diet on the future risk of dementia or amyloid-beta (Abeta) accumulation.

OksanaKiian/Getty Images

“While our study does not rule out a possible association between diet and dementia, we did not find a link in our study, which had a long follow-up period, included younger participants than some other studies and did not require people to remember what foods they had eaten regularly years before,” study investigator Isabelle Glans, MD, of Lund (Sweden) University, said in a news release.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

No risk reduction

Several studies have investigated how dietary habits affect dementia risk, with inconsistent results.

The new findings are based on 28,025 adults (61% women; mean age, 58 years at baseline) who were free of dementia at baseline and were followed over a 20-year period as part of the Swedish Malmö Diet and Cancer Study. Dietary habits were assessed with a 7-day food diary, detailed food frequency questionnaire, and in-person interview.

During follow-up, 1,943 individuals (6.9%) developed dementia.

Compared with those who did not develop dementia, those who did develop dementia during follow-up were older and had a lower level of education and more cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities at baseline.

Individuals who adhered to conventional healthy dietary recommendations did not have a lower risk of developing all-cause dementia (hazard ratio comparing worst with best adherence, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.08), Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.85-1.23) or vascular dementia (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.69-1.26).

Adherence to the modified Mediterranean diet also did not appear to lower the risk of all-cause dementia (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.75-1.15), Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.68-1.19), or vascular dementia (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.65-1.55).

There was also no significant association between diet and Alzheimer’s disease–related pathology, as measured by cerebrospinal fluid analysis of Abeta42 in a subgroup of 738 participants. Various sensitivity analyses yielded similar results.
 

Diet still matters

The authors of an accompanying editorial noted that diet as a “singular factor may not have a strong enough effect on cognition, but is more likely to be considered as one factor embedded with various others, the sum of which may influence the course of cognitive function (diet, regular exercise, vascular risk factor control, avoiding cigarette smoking, drinking alcohol in moderation, etc).

“Diet should not be forgotten and it still matters” but should be regarded as “one part of a multidomain intervention with respect to cognitive performance,” wrote Nils Peters, MD, with the University of Basel (Switzerland), and Benedetta Nacmias, PhD, with the University of Florence (Italy)).

“Key questions that remain include how to provide evidence for promoting the implications of dietary habits on cognition? Overall, dietary strategies will most likely be implicated either in order to reduce the increasing number of older subjects with dementia, or to extend healthy life expectancy, or both,” Dr. Peters and Dr. Nacmias said.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Glans, Dr. Peters, and Dr. Nacmias disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contrary to some prior studies, new research suggests that a healthy diet, including the Mediterranean diet, does not reduce dementia risk.

After adjusting for relevant demographic and other lifestyle measures, there was no association between adherence to healthy dietary advice or the Mediterranean diet on the future risk of dementia or amyloid-beta (Abeta) accumulation.

OksanaKiian/Getty Images

“While our study does not rule out a possible association between diet and dementia, we did not find a link in our study, which had a long follow-up period, included younger participants than some other studies and did not require people to remember what foods they had eaten regularly years before,” study investigator Isabelle Glans, MD, of Lund (Sweden) University, said in a news release.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

No risk reduction

Several studies have investigated how dietary habits affect dementia risk, with inconsistent results.

The new findings are based on 28,025 adults (61% women; mean age, 58 years at baseline) who were free of dementia at baseline and were followed over a 20-year period as part of the Swedish Malmö Diet and Cancer Study. Dietary habits were assessed with a 7-day food diary, detailed food frequency questionnaire, and in-person interview.

During follow-up, 1,943 individuals (6.9%) developed dementia.

Compared with those who did not develop dementia, those who did develop dementia during follow-up were older and had a lower level of education and more cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities at baseline.

Individuals who adhered to conventional healthy dietary recommendations did not have a lower risk of developing all-cause dementia (hazard ratio comparing worst with best adherence, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.08), Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.85-1.23) or vascular dementia (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.69-1.26).

Adherence to the modified Mediterranean diet also did not appear to lower the risk of all-cause dementia (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.75-1.15), Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.68-1.19), or vascular dementia (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.65-1.55).

There was also no significant association between diet and Alzheimer’s disease–related pathology, as measured by cerebrospinal fluid analysis of Abeta42 in a subgroup of 738 participants. Various sensitivity analyses yielded similar results.
 

Diet still matters

The authors of an accompanying editorial noted that diet as a “singular factor may not have a strong enough effect on cognition, but is more likely to be considered as one factor embedded with various others, the sum of which may influence the course of cognitive function (diet, regular exercise, vascular risk factor control, avoiding cigarette smoking, drinking alcohol in moderation, etc).

“Diet should not be forgotten and it still matters” but should be regarded as “one part of a multidomain intervention with respect to cognitive performance,” wrote Nils Peters, MD, with the University of Basel (Switzerland), and Benedetta Nacmias, PhD, with the University of Florence (Italy)).

“Key questions that remain include how to provide evidence for promoting the implications of dietary habits on cognition? Overall, dietary strategies will most likely be implicated either in order to reduce the increasing number of older subjects with dementia, or to extend healthy life expectancy, or both,” Dr. Peters and Dr. Nacmias said.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Glans, Dr. Peters, and Dr. Nacmias disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patient-reported symptoms and quality of life should guide treatment for the roughly 8.5 million people in the United States living with peripheral artery disease (PAD), the American Heart Association said in a new scientific statement released Oct. 13.

“The person living with PAD is the authority on the impact it has on their daily life. Our treatment must be grounded in their lived experiences and go beyond the clinical measures of how well blood flows through the arteries,” Kim G. Smolderen, PhD, lead author of the statement writing group, says in a release.

“We have spent years developing and validating standardized instruments to capture people’s experiences in a reliable and sensitive way. We are now at a point where we can start integrating this information into real-world care, through pilot programs that can develop quality benchmarks for different phenotypes of patients with PAD and the types of treatments they undergo, as seen from their perspective,” adds Dr. Smolderen, co-director of the Vascular Medicine Outcomes Research (VAMOS) lab at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The statement, “Advancing Peripheral Artery Disease Quality of Care and Outcomes Through Patient-Reported Health Status Assessment,” is published online in Circulation.

It comes on the heels of a 2021 AHA statement urging greater attention to PAD, which is underdiagnosed and undertreated in the United States despite its high prevalence.
 

Fragmented care

Dr. Smolderen said that the multidisciplinary writing group was united in one overarching goal: “How can we disrupt the fragmented care model for PAD and make PAD care more accountable, value-based, and patient-centered?”

“True disruption is needed in a clinical space where the treatment of lower-extremity disease lies in the hands of many different specialties and variability in care and outcomes is a major concern,” Dr. Smolderen said.

The statement calls for improving and individualizing PAD care by gathering feedback from their experience through treatment using systematic and validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

PROMs for PAD include the Walking Impairment Questionnaire (WIQ), the Vascular Quality of Life Questionnaire (VascuQoL), and Peripheral Artery Questionnaire (PAQ).
 

Accountability tied to reimbursement

Dr. Smolderen noted that PROMs are increasingly being integrated into definitions of what it means to deliver high-quality, patient-centered care, and PROMs scores may directly impact reimbursement.

“Using a template that has been implemented in other medical conditions, we propose a shift in metrics that will tell us whether high-quality PAD care has been delivered from a patients’ perspective,” Dr. Smolderen told this news organization.

That is, “have we been able to improve the health status of that person’s life? We may have removed the blockage in the arteries, but will the patient feel that this intervention has addressed their PAD-specific health status goals?”

To facilitate accountability in quality PAD care, the writing group calls for developing, testing, and implementing PAD-specific patient-reported outcomes performance measures – or PRO-PMs.

Pilot efforts demonstrating feasibility of PRO-PMs in various practice settings are needed, as is implementation research evaluating the integration of PRO-PMs and pragmatic clinical trial evidence to demonstrate efficacy of the use of PROs in real world care settings to improve overall PAD outcomes, the writing group says.

“Following that experience and data, we believe value-based models can be proposed integrating PRO information that will affect accountability in PAD care and may ultimately affect reimbursement,” Dr. Smolderen said.

“Adoption of this new paradigm will further improve the quality of care for PAD and will put the patient front and center, as an agent in their care,” she added.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease and the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health. The writing group includes a patient advocate and experts in clinical psychology, outcomes research, nursing, cardiology, vascular surgery, and vascular medicine.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Smolderen has disclosed relationships with Optum, Abbott, Cook Medical, Happify, and Tegus.

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

Patient-reported symptoms and quality of life should guide treatment for the roughly 8.5 million people in the United States living with peripheral artery disease (PAD), the American Heart Association said in a new scientific statement released Oct. 13.

“The person living with PAD is the authority on the impact it has on their daily life. Our treatment must be grounded in their lived experiences and go beyond the clinical measures of how well blood flows through the arteries,” Kim G. Smolderen, PhD, lead author of the statement writing group, says in a release.

“We have spent years developing and validating standardized instruments to capture people’s experiences in a reliable and sensitive way. We are now at a point where we can start integrating this information into real-world care, through pilot programs that can develop quality benchmarks for different phenotypes of patients with PAD and the types of treatments they undergo, as seen from their perspective,” adds Dr. Smolderen, co-director of the Vascular Medicine Outcomes Research (VAMOS) lab at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The statement, “Advancing Peripheral Artery Disease Quality of Care and Outcomes Through Patient-Reported Health Status Assessment,” is published online in Circulation.

It comes on the heels of a 2021 AHA statement urging greater attention to PAD, which is underdiagnosed and undertreated in the United States despite its high prevalence.
 

Fragmented care

Dr. Smolderen said that the multidisciplinary writing group was united in one overarching goal: “How can we disrupt the fragmented care model for PAD and make PAD care more accountable, value-based, and patient-centered?”

“True disruption is needed in a clinical space where the treatment of lower-extremity disease lies in the hands of many different specialties and variability in care and outcomes is a major concern,” Dr. Smolderen said.

The statement calls for improving and individualizing PAD care by gathering feedback from their experience through treatment using systematic and validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

PROMs for PAD include the Walking Impairment Questionnaire (WIQ), the Vascular Quality of Life Questionnaire (VascuQoL), and Peripheral Artery Questionnaire (PAQ).
 

Accountability tied to reimbursement

Dr. Smolderen noted that PROMs are increasingly being integrated into definitions of what it means to deliver high-quality, patient-centered care, and PROMs scores may directly impact reimbursement.

“Using a template that has been implemented in other medical conditions, we propose a shift in metrics that will tell us whether high-quality PAD care has been delivered from a patients’ perspective,” Dr. Smolderen told this news organization.

That is, “have we been able to improve the health status of that person’s life? We may have removed the blockage in the arteries, but will the patient feel that this intervention has addressed their PAD-specific health status goals?”

To facilitate accountability in quality PAD care, the writing group calls for developing, testing, and implementing PAD-specific patient-reported outcomes performance measures – or PRO-PMs.

Pilot efforts demonstrating feasibility of PRO-PMs in various practice settings are needed, as is implementation research evaluating the integration of PRO-PMs and pragmatic clinical trial evidence to demonstrate efficacy of the use of PROs in real world care settings to improve overall PAD outcomes, the writing group says.

“Following that experience and data, we believe value-based models can be proposed integrating PRO information that will affect accountability in PAD care and may ultimately affect reimbursement,” Dr. Smolderen said.

“Adoption of this new paradigm will further improve the quality of care for PAD and will put the patient front and center, as an agent in their care,” she added.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease and the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health. The writing group includes a patient advocate and experts in clinical psychology, outcomes research, nursing, cardiology, vascular surgery, and vascular medicine.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Smolderen has disclosed relationships with Optum, Abbott, Cook Medical, Happify, and Tegus.

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

Patient-reported symptoms and quality of life should guide treatment for the roughly 8.5 million people in the United States living with peripheral artery disease (PAD), the American Heart Association said in a new scientific statement released Oct. 13.

“The person living with PAD is the authority on the impact it has on their daily life. Our treatment must be grounded in their lived experiences and go beyond the clinical measures of how well blood flows through the arteries,” Kim G. Smolderen, PhD, lead author of the statement writing group, says in a release.

“We have spent years developing and validating standardized instruments to capture people’s experiences in a reliable and sensitive way. We are now at a point where we can start integrating this information into real-world care, through pilot programs that can develop quality benchmarks for different phenotypes of patients with PAD and the types of treatments they undergo, as seen from their perspective,” adds Dr. Smolderen, co-director of the Vascular Medicine Outcomes Research (VAMOS) lab at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The statement, “Advancing Peripheral Artery Disease Quality of Care and Outcomes Through Patient-Reported Health Status Assessment,” is published online in Circulation.

It comes on the heels of a 2021 AHA statement urging greater attention to PAD, which is underdiagnosed and undertreated in the United States despite its high prevalence.
 

Fragmented care

Dr. Smolderen said that the multidisciplinary writing group was united in one overarching goal: “How can we disrupt the fragmented care model for PAD and make PAD care more accountable, value-based, and patient-centered?”

“True disruption is needed in a clinical space where the treatment of lower-extremity disease lies in the hands of many different specialties and variability in care and outcomes is a major concern,” Dr. Smolderen said.

The statement calls for improving and individualizing PAD care by gathering feedback from their experience through treatment using systematic and validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

PROMs for PAD include the Walking Impairment Questionnaire (WIQ), the Vascular Quality of Life Questionnaire (VascuQoL), and Peripheral Artery Questionnaire (PAQ).
 

Accountability tied to reimbursement

Dr. Smolderen noted that PROMs are increasingly being integrated into definitions of what it means to deliver high-quality, patient-centered care, and PROMs scores may directly impact reimbursement.

“Using a template that has been implemented in other medical conditions, we propose a shift in metrics that will tell us whether high-quality PAD care has been delivered from a patients’ perspective,” Dr. Smolderen told this news organization.

That is, “have we been able to improve the health status of that person’s life? We may have removed the blockage in the arteries, but will the patient feel that this intervention has addressed their PAD-specific health status goals?”

To facilitate accountability in quality PAD care, the writing group calls for developing, testing, and implementing PAD-specific patient-reported outcomes performance measures – or PRO-PMs.

Pilot efforts demonstrating feasibility of PRO-PMs in various practice settings are needed, as is implementation research evaluating the integration of PRO-PMs and pragmatic clinical trial evidence to demonstrate efficacy of the use of PROs in real world care settings to improve overall PAD outcomes, the writing group says.

“Following that experience and data, we believe value-based models can be proposed integrating PRO information that will affect accountability in PAD care and may ultimately affect reimbursement,” Dr. Smolderen said.

“Adoption of this new paradigm will further improve the quality of care for PAD and will put the patient front and center, as an agent in their care,” she added.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease and the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health. The writing group includes a patient advocate and experts in clinical psychology, outcomes research, nursing, cardiology, vascular surgery, and vascular medicine.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Smolderen has disclosed relationships with Optum, Abbott, Cook Medical, Happify, and Tegus.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has confirmed a nationwide shortage of the immediate release formulation of amphetamine mixed salts (Adderall, Adderall IR), which are approved for treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and narcolepsy.

The FDA announcement follows weeks of reports of a shortage of the drug by pharmacy chains and Adderall users.

The agency said it is in “frequent” contact with all manufacturers of Adderall – and reported that one of those companies, Teva, is experiencing ongoing intermittent manufacturing delays.

Other manufacturers continue to produce amphetamine mixed salts, but there is not enough supply to continue to meet U.S. market demand through those producers, the FDA noted.

“Until supply is restored, there are alternative therapies, including the extended-release version of amphetamine mixed salts, available to health care professionals and their patients for amphetamine mixed salts’ approved indications,” the agency said.

Patients should work with their health care provider to determine their best treatment option, it added.

The organization is continuing to monitor the supply of Adderall and to help manufacturers resolve the shortage.

Its Drug Shortage webpage has additional information about the situation and is updated regularly.

“We continue to use all the tools we have available to help keep supply available for patients and will provide public updates regarding the Adderall shortage,” the FDA said.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has confirmed a nationwide shortage of the immediate release formulation of amphetamine mixed salts (Adderall, Adderall IR), which are approved for treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and narcolepsy.

The FDA announcement follows weeks of reports of a shortage of the drug by pharmacy chains and Adderall users.

The agency said it is in “frequent” contact with all manufacturers of Adderall – and reported that one of those companies, Teva, is experiencing ongoing intermittent manufacturing delays.

Other manufacturers continue to produce amphetamine mixed salts, but there is not enough supply to continue to meet U.S. market demand through those producers, the FDA noted.

“Until supply is restored, there are alternative therapies, including the extended-release version of amphetamine mixed salts, available to health care professionals and their patients for amphetamine mixed salts’ approved indications,” the agency said.

Patients should work with their health care provider to determine their best treatment option, it added.

The organization is continuing to monitor the supply of Adderall and to help manufacturers resolve the shortage.

Its Drug Shortage webpage has additional information about the situation and is updated regularly.

“We continue to use all the tools we have available to help keep supply available for patients and will provide public updates regarding the Adderall shortage,” the FDA said.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has confirmed a nationwide shortage of the immediate release formulation of amphetamine mixed salts (Adderall, Adderall IR), which are approved for treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and narcolepsy.

The FDA announcement follows weeks of reports of a shortage of the drug by pharmacy chains and Adderall users.

The agency said it is in “frequent” contact with all manufacturers of Adderall – and reported that one of those companies, Teva, is experiencing ongoing intermittent manufacturing delays.

Other manufacturers continue to produce amphetamine mixed salts, but there is not enough supply to continue to meet U.S. market demand through those producers, the FDA noted.

“Until supply is restored, there are alternative therapies, including the extended-release version of amphetamine mixed salts, available to health care professionals and their patients for amphetamine mixed salts’ approved indications,” the agency said.

Patients should work with their health care provider to determine their best treatment option, it added.

The organization is continuing to monitor the supply of Adderall and to help manufacturers resolve the shortage.

Its Drug Shortage webpage has additional information about the situation and is updated regularly.

“We continue to use all the tools we have available to help keep supply available for patients and will provide public updates regarding the Adderall shortage,” the FDA said.

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

The American College of Cardiology has released an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the evaluation and disposition of acute chest pain in the emergency department.

Chest pain accounts for more than 7 million ED visits annually. A major challenge is to quickly identify the small number of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) among the large number of patients who have noncardiac conditions.

The new document is intended to provide guidance on how to “practically apply” recommendations from the 2021 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain, focusing specifically on patients who present to the ED, the writing group explains.

“A systematic approach – both at the level of the institution and the individual patient – is essential to achieve optimal outcomes for patients presenting with chest pain to the ED,” say writing group chair Michael Kontos, MD, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues.

At the institution level, this decision pathway recommends high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays coupled with a clinical decision pathway (CDP) to reduce ED “dwell” times and increase the number of patients with chest pain who can safely be discharged without additional testing. This will decrease ED crowding and limit unnecessary testing, they point out. 

At the individual patient level, this document aims to provide structure for the ED evaluation of chest pain, accelerating the evaluation process and matching the intensity of testing and treatment to patient risk.

The 36-page document was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Key summary points in the document include the following:

• Electrocardiogram remains the best initial test for evaluation of chest pain in the ED and should be performed and interpreted within 10 minutes of ED arrival.
• In patients who arrive via ambulance, the prehospital ECG should be reviewed, because ischemic changes may have resolved before ED arrival.
• When the ECG shows evidence of acute infarction or ischemia, subsequent care should follow current guidelines for management of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non–ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS).
• Patients with a nonischemic ECG can enter an accelerated CDP designed to provide rapid risk assessment and exclusion of ACS.
• Patients who are hemodynamically unstable, have significant arrhythmias, or evidence of significant heart failure should be evaluated and treated appropriately and are not candidates for an accelerated CDP.
• High-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) are the preferred biomarkers for evaluation of possible ACS.
• Patients classified as low risk (rule out) using the current hs-cTn-based CDPs can generally be discharged directly from the ED without additional testing, although outpatient testing may be considered in selected cases.
• Patients with substantially elevated initial hs-cTn values or those with significant dynamic changes over 1-3 hours are assigned to the abnormal/high-risk category and should be further classified according to the universal definition of myocardial infarction type 1 or 2 or acute or chronic nonischemic cardiac injury.
• High-risk patients should usually be admitted to an inpatient setting for further evaluation and treatment.
• Patients determined to be intermediate risk with the CDP should undergo additional observation with repeat hs-cTn measurements at 3-6 hours and risk assessment using either the modified HEART (history, ECG, age, risk factors, and troponin) score or the ED assessment of chest pain score (EDACS).
• Noninvasive testing should be considered for the intermediate-risk group unless low-risk features are identified using risk scores or noninvasive testing has been performed recently with normal or low-risk findings.

The writing group notes that “safe and efficient” management of chest pain in the ED requires appropriate follow-up after discharge. Timing of follow-up and referral for outpatient noninvasive testing should be influenced by patient risk and results of cardiac testing.

Disclosures for members of the writing group are available with the original article.

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

The American College of Cardiology has released an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the evaluation and disposition of acute chest pain in the emergency department.

Chest pain accounts for more than 7 million ED visits annually. A major challenge is to quickly identify the small number of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) among the large number of patients who have noncardiac conditions.

The new document is intended to provide guidance on how to “practically apply” recommendations from the 2021 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain, focusing specifically on patients who present to the ED, the writing group explains.

“A systematic approach – both at the level of the institution and the individual patient – is essential to achieve optimal outcomes for patients presenting with chest pain to the ED,” say writing group chair Michael Kontos, MD, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues.

At the institution level, this decision pathway recommends high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays coupled with a clinical decision pathway (CDP) to reduce ED “dwell” times and increase the number of patients with chest pain who can safely be discharged without additional testing. This will decrease ED crowding and limit unnecessary testing, they point out. 

At the individual patient level, this document aims to provide structure for the ED evaluation of chest pain, accelerating the evaluation process and matching the intensity of testing and treatment to patient risk.

The 36-page document was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Key summary points in the document include the following:

• Electrocardiogram remains the best initial test for evaluation of chest pain in the ED and should be performed and interpreted within 10 minutes of ED arrival.
• In patients who arrive via ambulance, the prehospital ECG should be reviewed, because ischemic changes may have resolved before ED arrival.
• When the ECG shows evidence of acute infarction or ischemia, subsequent care should follow current guidelines for management of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non–ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS).
• Patients with a nonischemic ECG can enter an accelerated CDP designed to provide rapid risk assessment and exclusion of ACS.
• Patients who are hemodynamically unstable, have significant arrhythmias, or evidence of significant heart failure should be evaluated and treated appropriately and are not candidates for an accelerated CDP.
• High-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) are the preferred biomarkers for evaluation of possible ACS.
• Patients classified as low risk (rule out) using the current hs-cTn-based CDPs can generally be discharged directly from the ED without additional testing, although outpatient testing may be considered in selected cases.
• Patients with substantially elevated initial hs-cTn values or those with significant dynamic changes over 1-3 hours are assigned to the abnormal/high-risk category and should be further classified according to the universal definition of myocardial infarction type 1 or 2 or acute or chronic nonischemic cardiac injury.
• High-risk patients should usually be admitted to an inpatient setting for further evaluation and treatment.
• Patients determined to be intermediate risk with the CDP should undergo additional observation with repeat hs-cTn measurements at 3-6 hours and risk assessment using either the modified HEART (history, ECG, age, risk factors, and troponin) score or the ED assessment of chest pain score (EDACS).
• Noninvasive testing should be considered for the intermediate-risk group unless low-risk features are identified using risk scores or noninvasive testing has been performed recently with normal or low-risk findings.

The writing group notes that “safe and efficient” management of chest pain in the ED requires appropriate follow-up after discharge. Timing of follow-up and referral for outpatient noninvasive testing should be influenced by patient risk and results of cardiac testing.

Disclosures for members of the writing group are available with the original article.

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

The American College of Cardiology has released an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the evaluation and disposition of acute chest pain in the emergency department.

Chest pain accounts for more than 7 million ED visits annually. A major challenge is to quickly identify the small number of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) among the large number of patients who have noncardiac conditions.

The new document is intended to provide guidance on how to “practically apply” recommendations from the 2021 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain, focusing specifically on patients who present to the ED, the writing group explains.

“A systematic approach – both at the level of the institution and the individual patient – is essential to achieve optimal outcomes for patients presenting with chest pain to the ED,” say writing group chair Michael Kontos, MD, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues.

At the institution level, this decision pathway recommends high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays coupled with a clinical decision pathway (CDP) to reduce ED “dwell” times and increase the number of patients with chest pain who can safely be discharged without additional testing. This will decrease ED crowding and limit unnecessary testing, they point out. 

At the individual patient level, this document aims to provide structure for the ED evaluation of chest pain, accelerating the evaluation process and matching the intensity of testing and treatment to patient risk.

The 36-page document was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Key summary points in the document include the following:

• Electrocardiogram remains the best initial test for evaluation of chest pain in the ED and should be performed and interpreted within 10 minutes of ED arrival.
• In patients who arrive via ambulance, the prehospital ECG should be reviewed, because ischemic changes may have resolved before ED arrival.
• When the ECG shows evidence of acute infarction or ischemia, subsequent care should follow current guidelines for management of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non–ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS).
• Patients with a nonischemic ECG can enter an accelerated CDP designed to provide rapid risk assessment and exclusion of ACS.
• Patients who are hemodynamically unstable, have significant arrhythmias, or evidence of significant heart failure should be evaluated and treated appropriately and are not candidates for an accelerated CDP.
• High-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) are the preferred biomarkers for evaluation of possible ACS.
• Patients classified as low risk (rule out) using the current hs-cTn-based CDPs can generally be discharged directly from the ED without additional testing, although outpatient testing may be considered in selected cases.
• Patients with substantially elevated initial hs-cTn values or those with significant dynamic changes over 1-3 hours are assigned to the abnormal/high-risk category and should be further classified according to the universal definition of myocardial infarction type 1 or 2 or acute or chronic nonischemic cardiac injury.
• High-risk patients should usually be admitted to an inpatient setting for further evaluation and treatment.
• Patients determined to be intermediate risk with the CDP should undergo additional observation with repeat hs-cTn measurements at 3-6 hours and risk assessment using either the modified HEART (history, ECG, age, risk factors, and troponin) score or the ED assessment of chest pain score (EDACS).
• Noninvasive testing should be considered for the intermediate-risk group unless low-risk features are identified using risk scores or noninvasive testing has been performed recently with normal or low-risk findings.

The writing group notes that “safe and efficient” management of chest pain in the ED requires appropriate follow-up after discharge. Timing of follow-up and referral for outpatient noninvasive testing should be influenced by patient risk and results of cardiac testing.

Disclosures for members of the writing group are available with the original article.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on Oct. 11 posted final recommendations on screening for anxiety, depression, and suicide risk in children and adolescents.

For the first time, the task force recommended screening for anxiety in children aged 8-18 years who do not have a diagnosed anxiety disorder and are not showing signs or symptoms of anxiety.

This “B” recommendation reflects “moderate certainty” evidence that screening for anxiety in 8- to 18-year-olds has a moderate net benefit, the task force said.

However, the task force found “insufficient” evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for anxiety in children aged 7 and younger and therefore issued an “I” statement.

The task force also recommended screening for children aged 12-18 years for major depressive disorder (“B” recommendation) but said there is insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for depression in children aged 11 and younger (“I” statement). 

These recommendations are in line with the 2016 recommendations on depression screening from the USPSTF.

“Fortunately, screening older children for anxiety and depression can identify these conditions so children and teens can receive the care that they need,” task force member Martha Kubik, PhD, RN, with George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., said in a statement.

“Unfortunately, there are key evidence gaps related to screening for anxiety and depression in younger children and screening for suicide risk in all youth,” added task force member Lori Pbert, PhD, University of Massachusetts, Worcester.

“We are calling for more research in these critical areas so we can provide health care professionals with evidence-based ways to keep their young patients healthy,” Dr. Pbert said.
 

Suicide screening

Turning to suicide, the task force says there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening for suicide risk in children and adolescents, and therefore issued an “I” statement – in line with the 2014 recommendation statement from the task force.

The task force acknowledged that the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and experts from the National Institute of Mental Health have released a “Blueprint for Youth Suicide Prevention” that recommends universal screening for suicide risk in youth 12 years or older, while children aged 8-11 years should be screened as clinically indicated.

The task force’s final recommendation statements and corresponding evidence summaries on screening children and adolescents for anxiety, depression and suicide were published online Oct. 11, 2022, in JAMA and the USPSTF website.

The final recommendations are consistent with the 2022 draft recommendation statements on these topics.

The task force emphasized that screening is only the first step in helping children and adolescents with anxiety and depression. Youth who screen positive need further evaluation to determine if they have anxiety or depression.

After diagnosis, youth should participate in shared decision-making with their parents and healthcare professional to identify the best treatment or combination of treatments.
 

Only a first step

In an accompanying editorial, John Walkup, MD, with Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital, Chicago, and coauthors made the point that, for the potential of screening for pediatric anxiety disorders to be fully realized, research focused on the process of screening from evaluation to treatment needs to be a priority.

“Perhaps most critical is developing a smart and sophisticated process of screening aligned with evidence-based treatment strategies that brings added value to routine pediatric medical care and that improves physical and mental health outcomes for children and adolescents,” they wrote.

Members of the USPSTF disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Walkup reported serving as an unpaid member of the scientific council of the Anxiety and Depression Association of America, receiving royalties for anxiety-related continuing medical education activities from Wolters Kluwer and honoraria for anxiety presentations from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on Oct. 11 posted final recommendations on screening for anxiety, depression, and suicide risk in children and adolescents.

For the first time, the task force recommended screening for anxiety in children aged 8-18 years who do not have a diagnosed anxiety disorder and are not showing signs or symptoms of anxiety.

This “B” recommendation reflects “moderate certainty” evidence that screening for anxiety in 8- to 18-year-olds has a moderate net benefit, the task force said.

However, the task force found “insufficient” evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for anxiety in children aged 7 and younger and therefore issued an “I” statement.

The task force also recommended screening for children aged 12-18 years for major depressive disorder (“B” recommendation) but said there is insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for depression in children aged 11 and younger (“I” statement). 

These recommendations are in line with the 2016 recommendations on depression screening from the USPSTF.

“Fortunately, screening older children for anxiety and depression can identify these conditions so children and teens can receive the care that they need,” task force member Martha Kubik, PhD, RN, with George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., said in a statement.

“Unfortunately, there are key evidence gaps related to screening for anxiety and depression in younger children and screening for suicide risk in all youth,” added task force member Lori Pbert, PhD, University of Massachusetts, Worcester.

“We are calling for more research in these critical areas so we can provide health care professionals with evidence-based ways to keep their young patients healthy,” Dr. Pbert said.
 

Suicide screening

Turning to suicide, the task force says there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening for suicide risk in children and adolescents, and therefore issued an “I” statement – in line with the 2014 recommendation statement from the task force.

The task force acknowledged that the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and experts from the National Institute of Mental Health have released a “Blueprint for Youth Suicide Prevention” that recommends universal screening for suicide risk in youth 12 years or older, while children aged 8-11 years should be screened as clinically indicated.

The task force’s final recommendation statements and corresponding evidence summaries on screening children and adolescents for anxiety, depression and suicide were published online Oct. 11, 2022, in JAMA and the USPSTF website.

The final recommendations are consistent with the 2022 draft recommendation statements on these topics.

The task force emphasized that screening is only the first step in helping children and adolescents with anxiety and depression. Youth who screen positive need further evaluation to determine if they have anxiety or depression.

After diagnosis, youth should participate in shared decision-making with their parents and healthcare professional to identify the best treatment or combination of treatments.
 

Only a first step

In an accompanying editorial, John Walkup, MD, with Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital, Chicago, and coauthors made the point that, for the potential of screening for pediatric anxiety disorders to be fully realized, research focused on the process of screening from evaluation to treatment needs to be a priority.

“Perhaps most critical is developing a smart and sophisticated process of screening aligned with evidence-based treatment strategies that brings added value to routine pediatric medical care and that improves physical and mental health outcomes for children and adolescents,” they wrote.

Members of the USPSTF disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Walkup reported serving as an unpaid member of the scientific council of the Anxiety and Depression Association of America, receiving royalties for anxiety-related continuing medical education activities from Wolters Kluwer and honoraria for anxiety presentations from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on Oct. 11 posted final recommendations on screening for anxiety, depression, and suicide risk in children and adolescents.

For the first time, the task force recommended screening for anxiety in children aged 8-18 years who do not have a diagnosed anxiety disorder and are not showing signs or symptoms of anxiety.

This “B” recommendation reflects “moderate certainty” evidence that screening for anxiety in 8- to 18-year-olds has a moderate net benefit, the task force said.

However, the task force found “insufficient” evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for anxiety in children aged 7 and younger and therefore issued an “I” statement.

The task force also recommended screening for children aged 12-18 years for major depressive disorder (“B” recommendation) but said there is insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for depression in children aged 11 and younger (“I” statement). 

These recommendations are in line with the 2016 recommendations on depression screening from the USPSTF.

“Fortunately, screening older children for anxiety and depression can identify these conditions so children and teens can receive the care that they need,” task force member Martha Kubik, PhD, RN, with George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., said in a statement.

“Unfortunately, there are key evidence gaps related to screening for anxiety and depression in younger children and screening for suicide risk in all youth,” added task force member Lori Pbert, PhD, University of Massachusetts, Worcester.

“We are calling for more research in these critical areas so we can provide health care professionals with evidence-based ways to keep their young patients healthy,” Dr. Pbert said.
 

Suicide screening

Turning to suicide, the task force says there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening for suicide risk in children and adolescents, and therefore issued an “I” statement – in line with the 2014 recommendation statement from the task force.

The task force acknowledged that the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and experts from the National Institute of Mental Health have released a “Blueprint for Youth Suicide Prevention” that recommends universal screening for suicide risk in youth 12 years or older, while children aged 8-11 years should be screened as clinically indicated.

The task force’s final recommendation statements and corresponding evidence summaries on screening children and adolescents for anxiety, depression and suicide were published online Oct. 11, 2022, in JAMA and the USPSTF website.

The final recommendations are consistent with the 2022 draft recommendation statements on these topics.

The task force emphasized that screening is only the first step in helping children and adolescents with anxiety and depression. Youth who screen positive need further evaluation to determine if they have anxiety or depression.

After diagnosis, youth should participate in shared decision-making with their parents and healthcare professional to identify the best treatment or combination of treatments.
 

Only a first step

In an accompanying editorial, John Walkup, MD, with Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital, Chicago, and coauthors made the point that, for the potential of screening for pediatric anxiety disorders to be fully realized, research focused on the process of screening from evaluation to treatment needs to be a priority.

“Perhaps most critical is developing a smart and sophisticated process of screening aligned with evidence-based treatment strategies that brings added value to routine pediatric medical care and that improves physical and mental health outcomes for children and adolescents,” they wrote.

Members of the USPSTF disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Walkup reported serving as an unpaid member of the scientific council of the Anxiety and Depression Association of America, receiving royalties for anxiety-related continuing medical education activities from Wolters Kluwer and honoraria for anxiety presentations from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

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

Exposure to air pollution not only raises stroke risk, but it is also tied to poor post-stroke outcomes, including death. Results of a UK biobank study show high levels of air pollution were associated with an increased risk of transition from health to a first stroke and subsequent progression to cardiovascular (CV) events and death.

“These results indicate that understanding and reducing the effects of air pollutants on different transition stages in stroke will be beneficial in managing people’s health and preventing the occurrence and progression of stroke,” study investigator Hualiang Lin, PhD, of Sun Yat-sen University School of Public Health, Guangzhou, China, said in a news release.

The study was published online  in the journal Neurology.
 

A way to stop stroke progression?

The researchers assessed air pollution exposure in 318,752 people (mean age, 56) from the UK biobank database. None had a history of stroke or heart disease at the start of the study. Annual concentrations of air pollution near where people lived were estimated through land-use regressions.

During an average follow-up of 12 years, 5,967 people had a stroke, 2,985 developed post-stroke CVD, and 1,020 died.

After adjusting for confounding factors, every 5 µg/m³ increase in exposure to fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) was associated with a 24% increase in transition from healthy to first stroke (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.40) and a 30% increase in transition from being healthy to dying (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.21-1.40).

PM_2.5 is less than 2.5 microns in diameter and includes fly ash from coal combustion. The World Health Organization recommends that annual PM_2.5 exposure should not exceed 5 µg/m³.

Those who had a stroke during the study had an average exposure of 10.03 µg/m³ of PM_2.5, compared with 9.97 µg/m³ for those who did not have a stroke.

The air pollutants nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide were also associated with an increased risk of stroke and death, but the associations were weaker.

“More research is needed, but it’s possible that decreasing exposure to heavy levels of air pollution could play a role in reducing the progression of stroke,” Dr. Lin said.

“People can reduce their exposure by staying indoors on heavy pollution days, reducing their outdoor exercise, wearing masks to filter out particulate matter, and using air purifiers,” Dr. Lin added.

Public policy implications

Reached for comment, Steffen E. Petersen, MD, MPH, professor of cardiovascular medicine, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, said the study “elegantly confirms the increased risk of stroke due to air pollution in the UK Biobank population study but interestingly suggests that the impact of air pollution may continue to adversely impact cardiovascular health even after the stroke occurred.”

“This is further evidence to inform policymakers to tackle air pollution and get levels below the recommended levels,” Dr. Petersen said.

“On a personal level, everyone, including stroke patients, may wish to consider personal measures to reduce exposure to air pollution, such as avoiding walking along polluted streets and rather take a less polluted route away from the main roads,” Dr. Petersen added.

The study had no targeted funding. Dr. Lin and Dr. Petersen report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exposure to air pollution not only raises stroke risk, but it is also tied to poor post-stroke outcomes, including death. Results of a UK biobank study show high levels of air pollution were associated with an increased risk of transition from health to a first stroke and subsequent progression to cardiovascular (CV) events and death.

“These results indicate that understanding and reducing the effects of air pollutants on different transition stages in stroke will be beneficial in managing people’s health and preventing the occurrence and progression of stroke,” study investigator Hualiang Lin, PhD, of Sun Yat-sen University School of Public Health, Guangzhou, China, said in a news release.

The study was published online  in the journal Neurology.
 

A way to stop stroke progression?

The researchers assessed air pollution exposure in 318,752 people (mean age, 56) from the UK biobank database. None had a history of stroke or heart disease at the start of the study. Annual concentrations of air pollution near where people lived were estimated through land-use regressions.

During an average follow-up of 12 years, 5,967 people had a stroke, 2,985 developed post-stroke CVD, and 1,020 died.

After adjusting for confounding factors, every 5 µg/m³ increase in exposure to fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) was associated with a 24% increase in transition from healthy to first stroke (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.40) and a 30% increase in transition from being healthy to dying (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.21-1.40).

PM_2.5 is less than 2.5 microns in diameter and includes fly ash from coal combustion. The World Health Organization recommends that annual PM_2.5 exposure should not exceed 5 µg/m³.

Those who had a stroke during the study had an average exposure of 10.03 µg/m³ of PM_2.5, compared with 9.97 µg/m³ for those who did not have a stroke.

The air pollutants nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide were also associated with an increased risk of stroke and death, but the associations were weaker.

“More research is needed, but it’s possible that decreasing exposure to heavy levels of air pollution could play a role in reducing the progression of stroke,” Dr. Lin said.

“People can reduce their exposure by staying indoors on heavy pollution days, reducing their outdoor exercise, wearing masks to filter out particulate matter, and using air purifiers,” Dr. Lin added.

Public policy implications

Reached for comment, Steffen E. Petersen, MD, MPH, professor of cardiovascular medicine, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, said the study “elegantly confirms the increased risk of stroke due to air pollution in the UK Biobank population study but interestingly suggests that the impact of air pollution may continue to adversely impact cardiovascular health even after the stroke occurred.”

“This is further evidence to inform policymakers to tackle air pollution and get levels below the recommended levels,” Dr. Petersen said.

“On a personal level, everyone, including stroke patients, may wish to consider personal measures to reduce exposure to air pollution, such as avoiding walking along polluted streets and rather take a less polluted route away from the main roads,” Dr. Petersen added.

The study had no targeted funding. Dr. Lin and Dr. Petersen report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exposure to air pollution not only raises stroke risk, but it is also tied to poor post-stroke outcomes, including death. Results of a UK biobank study show high levels of air pollution were associated with an increased risk of transition from health to a first stroke and subsequent progression to cardiovascular (CV) events and death.

“These results indicate that understanding and reducing the effects of air pollutants on different transition stages in stroke will be beneficial in managing people’s health and preventing the occurrence and progression of stroke,” study investigator Hualiang Lin, PhD, of Sun Yat-sen University School of Public Health, Guangzhou, China, said in a news release.

The study was published online  in the journal Neurology.
 

A way to stop stroke progression?

The researchers assessed air pollution exposure in 318,752 people (mean age, 56) from the UK biobank database. None had a history of stroke or heart disease at the start of the study. Annual concentrations of air pollution near where people lived were estimated through land-use regressions.

During an average follow-up of 12 years, 5,967 people had a stroke, 2,985 developed post-stroke CVD, and 1,020 died.

After adjusting for confounding factors, every 5 µg/m³ increase in exposure to fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) was associated with a 24% increase in transition from healthy to first stroke (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.40) and a 30% increase in transition from being healthy to dying (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.21-1.40).

PM_2.5 is less than 2.5 microns in diameter and includes fly ash from coal combustion. The World Health Organization recommends that annual PM_2.5 exposure should not exceed 5 µg/m³.

Those who had a stroke during the study had an average exposure of 10.03 µg/m³ of PM_2.5, compared with 9.97 µg/m³ for those who did not have a stroke.

The air pollutants nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide were also associated with an increased risk of stroke and death, but the associations were weaker.

“More research is needed, but it’s possible that decreasing exposure to heavy levels of air pollution could play a role in reducing the progression of stroke,” Dr. Lin said.

“People can reduce their exposure by staying indoors on heavy pollution days, reducing their outdoor exercise, wearing masks to filter out particulate matter, and using air purifiers,” Dr. Lin added.

Public policy implications

Reached for comment, Steffen E. Petersen, MD, MPH, professor of cardiovascular medicine, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, said the study “elegantly confirms the increased risk of stroke due to air pollution in the UK Biobank population study but interestingly suggests that the impact of air pollution may continue to adversely impact cardiovascular health even after the stroke occurred.”

“This is further evidence to inform policymakers to tackle air pollution and get levels below the recommended levels,” Dr. Petersen said.

“On a personal level, everyone, including stroke patients, may wish to consider personal measures to reduce exposure to air pollution, such as avoiding walking along polluted streets and rather take a less polluted route away from the main roads,” Dr. Petersen added.

The study had no targeted funding. Dr. Lin and Dr. Petersen report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Revised ICD-10-CM codes for neurocognitive disorders are now in effect, the American Psychiatric Association has announced

The coding changes for major and mild neurocognitive disorders represent “the most consequential” coding changes for DSM-5 disorders since the Oct. 1, 2015, changeover from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM,” Michael First, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, in New York, wrote in a statement published in Psychiatric News.

The updated codes for neurocognitive disorders are “much more specific and indicate all the different types of behavioral problems that could occur with dementia,” First, who served as editor of the DSM-5-TR, added in an interview.

This year, coding changes that affect psychiatry are largely confined to major and mild neurocognitive disorders, but they represent “a big switch-over,” Dr. First said.
 

What’s new

The first three characters that make up the ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder depend on the type of etiologic medical condition and are unchanged:

• F01 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by vascular disease
• F02 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by other medical conditions in which the specific etiologic medical condition is indicated by also listing the ICD-10-CM code for the medical condition
• F03 for major neurocognitive disorder when the medical etiology is unknown

However, DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for major neurocognitive disorder include severity specifiers (mild, moderate, severe), but there is no provision for indicating this “clinically important” information in the current ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder, Dr. First explained.

The 2022 coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder include the provision of a fourth character code to indicate the severity of the major neurocognitive disorder – “A” indicates mild (difficulties with instrumental activities of daily living, such as housework and managing money); “B,” moderate (difficulties with basic activities of daily living, such as feeding and dressing); and “C,” severe (fully dependent) impairment.

The coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder also now include fifth and sixth characters to indicate the presence of an accompanying behavioral or psychological disturbance, such as agitation, psychotic disturbance, mood symptoms, and anxiety.

The update, which went into effect Oct. 1, also adds to ICD-10-CM two new mental disorder codes, F06.71 and F06.70 for mild neurocognitive disorder caused by a medical condition with or without a behavioral disturbance, respectively.

The coding changes affecting psychiatry are outlined in the APA’s 2022 DSM-5-TR Update: Supplement to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and DSM-5-TR Neurocognitive Disorders Supplement.
 

Annual event

Every Oct. 1, ICD-10-CM codes for all of medicine are updated, with new codes being added and others revised or deleted. Only a small fraction of the 68,000 codes is affected. Last year, 159 new codes were added, 25 codes were deleted, and 27 existing codes were revised.

All HIPAA-compliant health care entities are required to use the most up-to-date ICD-10-CM codes.

“I think there’s a grace period where you can still use the old codes, but there will be a point where if you use the old code, it’ll get rejected because it won’t be considered a valid code,” said Dr. First.

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

Revised ICD-10-CM codes for neurocognitive disorders are now in effect, the American Psychiatric Association has announced

The coding changes for major and mild neurocognitive disorders represent “the most consequential” coding changes for DSM-5 disorders since the Oct. 1, 2015, changeover from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM,” Michael First, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, in New York, wrote in a statement published in Psychiatric News.

The updated codes for neurocognitive disorders are “much more specific and indicate all the different types of behavioral problems that could occur with dementia,” First, who served as editor of the DSM-5-TR, added in an interview.

This year, coding changes that affect psychiatry are largely confined to major and mild neurocognitive disorders, but they represent “a big switch-over,” Dr. First said.
 

What’s new

The first three characters that make up the ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder depend on the type of etiologic medical condition and are unchanged:

• F01 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by vascular disease
• F02 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by other medical conditions in which the specific etiologic medical condition is indicated by also listing the ICD-10-CM code for the medical condition
• F03 for major neurocognitive disorder when the medical etiology is unknown

However, DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for major neurocognitive disorder include severity specifiers (mild, moderate, severe), but there is no provision for indicating this “clinically important” information in the current ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder, Dr. First explained.

The 2022 coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder include the provision of a fourth character code to indicate the severity of the major neurocognitive disorder – “A” indicates mild (difficulties with instrumental activities of daily living, such as housework and managing money); “B,” moderate (difficulties with basic activities of daily living, such as feeding and dressing); and “C,” severe (fully dependent) impairment.

The coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder also now include fifth and sixth characters to indicate the presence of an accompanying behavioral or psychological disturbance, such as agitation, psychotic disturbance, mood symptoms, and anxiety.

The update, which went into effect Oct. 1, also adds to ICD-10-CM two new mental disorder codes, F06.71 and F06.70 for mild neurocognitive disorder caused by a medical condition with or without a behavioral disturbance, respectively.

The coding changes affecting psychiatry are outlined in the APA’s 2022 DSM-5-TR Update: Supplement to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and DSM-5-TR Neurocognitive Disorders Supplement.
 

Annual event

Every Oct. 1, ICD-10-CM codes for all of medicine are updated, with new codes being added and others revised or deleted. Only a small fraction of the 68,000 codes is affected. Last year, 159 new codes were added, 25 codes were deleted, and 27 existing codes were revised.

All HIPAA-compliant health care entities are required to use the most up-to-date ICD-10-CM codes.

“I think there’s a grace period where you can still use the old codes, but there will be a point where if you use the old code, it’ll get rejected because it won’t be considered a valid code,” said Dr. First.

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

Revised ICD-10-CM codes for neurocognitive disorders are now in effect, the American Psychiatric Association has announced

The coding changes for major and mild neurocognitive disorders represent “the most consequential” coding changes for DSM-5 disorders since the Oct. 1, 2015, changeover from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM,” Michael First, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, in New York, wrote in a statement published in Psychiatric News.

The updated codes for neurocognitive disorders are “much more specific and indicate all the different types of behavioral problems that could occur with dementia,” First, who served as editor of the DSM-5-TR, added in an interview.

This year, coding changes that affect psychiatry are largely confined to major and mild neurocognitive disorders, but they represent “a big switch-over,” Dr. First said.
 

What’s new

The first three characters that make up the ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder depend on the type of etiologic medical condition and are unchanged:

• F01 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by vascular disease
• F02 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by other medical conditions in which the specific etiologic medical condition is indicated by also listing the ICD-10-CM code for the medical condition
• F03 for major neurocognitive disorder when the medical etiology is unknown

However, DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for major neurocognitive disorder include severity specifiers (mild, moderate, severe), but there is no provision for indicating this “clinically important” information in the current ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder, Dr. First explained.

The 2022 coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder include the provision of a fourth character code to indicate the severity of the major neurocognitive disorder – “A” indicates mild (difficulties with instrumental activities of daily living, such as housework and managing money); “B,” moderate (difficulties with basic activities of daily living, such as feeding and dressing); and “C,” severe (fully dependent) impairment.

The coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder also now include fifth and sixth characters to indicate the presence of an accompanying behavioral or psychological disturbance, such as agitation, psychotic disturbance, mood symptoms, and anxiety.

The update, which went into effect Oct. 1, also adds to ICD-10-CM two new mental disorder codes, F06.71 and F06.70 for mild neurocognitive disorder caused by a medical condition with or without a behavioral disturbance, respectively.

The coding changes affecting psychiatry are outlined in the APA’s 2022 DSM-5-TR Update: Supplement to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and DSM-5-TR Neurocognitive Disorders Supplement.
 

Annual event

Every Oct. 1, ICD-10-CM codes for all of medicine are updated, with new codes being added and others revised or deleted. Only a small fraction of the 68,000 codes is affected. Last year, 159 new codes were added, 25 codes were deleted, and 27 existing codes were revised.

All HIPAA-compliant health care entities are required to use the most up-to-date ICD-10-CM codes.

“I think there’s a grace period where you can still use the old codes, but there will be a point where if you use the old code, it’ll get rejected because it won’t be considered a valid code,” said Dr. First.

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

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) targets for endoscopists performing colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) should be markedly higher compared with ADR targets used in primary colonoscopy, researchers report.

Data from the Netherlands FIT-based screening program show that the ADR is “linearly and inversely” associated with interim colorectal cancer (CRC) occurrence, first author Pieter H.A. Wisse, MD, with Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

“Endoscopists should strive to obtain ADRs as high as possible” in FIT-positive screenees, Wisse said.

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

Small differences, huge consequences

The ADR is a key quality indicator for endoscopists performing colonoscopies for CRC because it reflects their ability to detect lesions and is inversely associated with the risk of interval postcolonoscopy CRC (PCCRC).

Adults with a positive FIT result have a high prevalence of adenomas, leading to high ADRs for endoscopists performing colonoscopies in this setting. However, data on optimal ADRs of endoscopists performing colonoscopies in FIT-based screening are scarce.

To investigate, Dr. Wisse and colleagues evaluated the association between the ADR and interval PCCRC in patients undergoing colonoscopy after a positive FIT result. The analysis included 362 accredited and audited endoscopists who performed 116,360 colonoscopies.

During a median follow-up of 52 months, 209 interval PCCRCs were identified.

The quality of the colonoscopic examinations in FIT-positive screenees was high; endoscopists’ ADRs ranged between 40% and 82%, with a median ADR of 67%.

A higher ADR was strongly associated with lower incidence of interval PCCRC, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.97) per 1% increase in ADR.

For endoscopists with an ADR of 60%, the cumulative incidence of interval PCCRC was nearly two times as high as that of endoscopists with an ADR of 70%. The risk was even higher for endoscopists with ADRs less than 60%.

For every 1,000 FIT-positive colonoscopies, the expected number of patients diagnosed with interval PCCRC in 5 years was roughly 2 for endoscopists with an ADR of 70%, compared with almost 3.5 for ADRs of 60% and more than 4.5 for ADRs of 55%.

The authors note that the relatively short duration of follow-up (median, 52 months) could be considered a study limitation.
 

Quality metrics needed

“These seemingly small ADR differences are deceptive – if an endoscopist increases their ADR by just 10%, their patients’ associated decrease in relative interval cancer risk is a remarkable 40% to 50%,” Douglas Corley, MD, PhD, MPH, from Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif., points out in an accompanying editorial.

Dr. Wisse and colleagues add that FIT-based colonoscopy has now surpassed primary colonoscopy as the most commonly used primary CRC-screening method.

They say there is a need to determine specific ADR targets for FIT-positive screenees to assure quality of colonoscopies and optimize the effect of screening programs by reducing interval PCCRC risk.

For primary colonoscopy, most professional societies recommend an ADR of at least 25% as an indicator of adequate performance. The new study suggests that FIT-positive colonoscopy “demands a markedly higher ADR target than primary colonoscopy,” the authors write.

Dr. Corley said this study provides “an excellent framework for evaluating nine concepts regarding effective quality metrics and how these can illustrate pathways for meaningful metrics for the care of other cancers and disorders.”

Quality metrics must be trustworthy, important, strategic, relevant, actionable, simple, gaming-resistant, time-stamped, and owned, he explained.

Questions concerning goals, plans for implementation of interventions, and the application of goals while maintaining simplicity must be considered in metric development, Dr. Corley said.

The study had no funding.

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

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) targets for endoscopists performing colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) should be markedly higher compared with ADR targets used in primary colonoscopy, researchers report.

Data from the Netherlands FIT-based screening program show that the ADR is “linearly and inversely” associated with interim colorectal cancer (CRC) occurrence, first author Pieter H.A. Wisse, MD, with Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

“Endoscopists should strive to obtain ADRs as high as possible” in FIT-positive screenees, Wisse said.

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

Small differences, huge consequences

The ADR is a key quality indicator for endoscopists performing colonoscopies for CRC because it reflects their ability to detect lesions and is inversely associated with the risk of interval postcolonoscopy CRC (PCCRC).

Adults with a positive FIT result have a high prevalence of adenomas, leading to high ADRs for endoscopists performing colonoscopies in this setting. However, data on optimal ADRs of endoscopists performing colonoscopies in FIT-based screening are scarce.

To investigate, Dr. Wisse and colleagues evaluated the association between the ADR and interval PCCRC in patients undergoing colonoscopy after a positive FIT result. The analysis included 362 accredited and audited endoscopists who performed 116,360 colonoscopies.

During a median follow-up of 52 months, 209 interval PCCRCs were identified.

The quality of the colonoscopic examinations in FIT-positive screenees was high; endoscopists’ ADRs ranged between 40% and 82%, with a median ADR of 67%.

A higher ADR was strongly associated with lower incidence of interval PCCRC, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.97) per 1% increase in ADR.

For endoscopists with an ADR of 60%, the cumulative incidence of interval PCCRC was nearly two times as high as that of endoscopists with an ADR of 70%. The risk was even higher for endoscopists with ADRs less than 60%.

For every 1,000 FIT-positive colonoscopies, the expected number of patients diagnosed with interval PCCRC in 5 years was roughly 2 for endoscopists with an ADR of 70%, compared with almost 3.5 for ADRs of 60% and more than 4.5 for ADRs of 55%.

The authors note that the relatively short duration of follow-up (median, 52 months) could be considered a study limitation.
 

Quality metrics needed

“These seemingly small ADR differences are deceptive – if an endoscopist increases their ADR by just 10%, their patients’ associated decrease in relative interval cancer risk is a remarkable 40% to 50%,” Douglas Corley, MD, PhD, MPH, from Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif., points out in an accompanying editorial.

Dr. Wisse and colleagues add that FIT-based colonoscopy has now surpassed primary colonoscopy as the most commonly used primary CRC-screening method.

They say there is a need to determine specific ADR targets for FIT-positive screenees to assure quality of colonoscopies and optimize the effect of screening programs by reducing interval PCCRC risk.

For primary colonoscopy, most professional societies recommend an ADR of at least 25% as an indicator of adequate performance. The new study suggests that FIT-positive colonoscopy “demands a markedly higher ADR target than primary colonoscopy,” the authors write.

Dr. Corley said this study provides “an excellent framework for evaluating nine concepts regarding effective quality metrics and how these can illustrate pathways for meaningful metrics for the care of other cancers and disorders.”

Quality metrics must be trustworthy, important, strategic, relevant, actionable, simple, gaming-resistant, time-stamped, and owned, he explained.

Questions concerning goals, plans for implementation of interventions, and the application of goals while maintaining simplicity must be considered in metric development, Dr. Corley said.

The study had no funding.

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

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) targets for endoscopists performing colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) should be markedly higher compared with ADR targets used in primary colonoscopy, researchers report.

Data from the Netherlands FIT-based screening program show that the ADR is “linearly and inversely” associated with interim colorectal cancer (CRC) occurrence, first author Pieter H.A. Wisse, MD, with Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

“Endoscopists should strive to obtain ADRs as high as possible” in FIT-positive screenees, Wisse said.

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

Small differences, huge consequences

The ADR is a key quality indicator for endoscopists performing colonoscopies for CRC because it reflects their ability to detect lesions and is inversely associated with the risk of interval postcolonoscopy CRC (PCCRC).

Adults with a positive FIT result have a high prevalence of adenomas, leading to high ADRs for endoscopists performing colonoscopies in this setting. However, data on optimal ADRs of endoscopists performing colonoscopies in FIT-based screening are scarce.

To investigate, Dr. Wisse and colleagues evaluated the association between the ADR and interval PCCRC in patients undergoing colonoscopy after a positive FIT result. The analysis included 362 accredited and audited endoscopists who performed 116,360 colonoscopies.

During a median follow-up of 52 months, 209 interval PCCRCs were identified.

The quality of the colonoscopic examinations in FIT-positive screenees was high; endoscopists’ ADRs ranged between 40% and 82%, with a median ADR of 67%.

A higher ADR was strongly associated with lower incidence of interval PCCRC, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.97) per 1% increase in ADR.

For endoscopists with an ADR of 60%, the cumulative incidence of interval PCCRC was nearly two times as high as that of endoscopists with an ADR of 70%. The risk was even higher for endoscopists with ADRs less than 60%.

For every 1,000 FIT-positive colonoscopies, the expected number of patients diagnosed with interval PCCRC in 5 years was roughly 2 for endoscopists with an ADR of 70%, compared with almost 3.5 for ADRs of 60% and more than 4.5 for ADRs of 55%.

The authors note that the relatively short duration of follow-up (median, 52 months) could be considered a study limitation.
 

Quality metrics needed

“These seemingly small ADR differences are deceptive – if an endoscopist increases their ADR by just 10%, their patients’ associated decrease in relative interval cancer risk is a remarkable 40% to 50%,” Douglas Corley, MD, PhD, MPH, from Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif., points out in an accompanying editorial.

Dr. Wisse and colleagues add that FIT-based colonoscopy has now surpassed primary colonoscopy as the most commonly used primary CRC-screening method.

They say there is a need to determine specific ADR targets for FIT-positive screenees to assure quality of colonoscopies and optimize the effect of screening programs by reducing interval PCCRC risk.

For primary colonoscopy, most professional societies recommend an ADR of at least 25% as an indicator of adequate performance. The new study suggests that FIT-positive colonoscopy “demands a markedly higher ADR target than primary colonoscopy,” the authors write.

Dr. Corley said this study provides “an excellent framework for evaluating nine concepts regarding effective quality metrics and how these can illustrate pathways for meaningful metrics for the care of other cancers and disorders.”

Quality metrics must be trustworthy, important, strategic, relevant, actionable, simple, gaming-resistant, time-stamped, and owned, he explained.

Questions concerning goals, plans for implementation of interventions, and the application of goals while maintaining simplicity must be considered in metric development, Dr. Corley said.

The study had no funding.

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