Megan Brooks

For the first time since 2013, the American College of Gastroenterology has issued updated evidence-based recommendations and practical guidance on the evaluation and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), including pharmacologic, lifestyle, surgical, and endoscopic management.

Over the past 8 years, understanding of the varied presentations of GERD, enhancements in diagnostic testing, and approach to patient management have evolved, and there has been closer scrutiny of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy and its potential side effects, the guideline authors said.

While PPIs remain the “medical treatment of choice” for GERD, multiple studies have raised questions about adverse events, they noted.

“We now know a lot more about PPI adverse events in the sense that we have another 8 years of experience” since the 2013 guideline, first author Philip O. Katz, MD, professor of medicine and director of motility laboratories at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, added in an interview.

This update emphasizes the importance of making an accurate diagnosis and recommends PPI therapy “when patients really have GERD and being careful to use the lowest effective dose,” Dr. Katz said.

The guideline was published online Nov. 22, 2021, in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Benefits outweigh risks

The guideline suggests telling patients that PPIs are the most effective medical treatment for GERD.

Some studies have identified an association between the long-term use of PPIs and the development of several adverse conditions, including intestinal infections, pneumonia, stomach cancer, osteoporosis-related bone fractures, chronic kidney disease, deficiencies of certain vitamins and minerals, heart attacks, strokes, dementia, and early death.

Clinicians should emphasize, however, that these studies have flaws, are not considered definitive, and do not establish a cause-and-effect relationship between PPIs and the adverse conditions.

They should also emphasize to patients that high-quality studies have found that PPIs do not significantly raise the risk of any of these conditions except intestinal infections.

Patients should be told that, for the treatment of GERD, “gastroenterologists generally agree that the well-established benefits of PPIs far outweigh their theoretical risks.”

“Everything in this guideline makes sense,” Scott Gabbard, MD, gastroenterologist and section head, Center for Neurogastroenterology and Motility, Cleveland Clinic, who wasn’t involved in the guideline development, said in an interview.

“A PPI trial for anyone with typical GERD symptoms and having those who respond taper to the lowest effective dose is still the first line for anyone with GERD,” Dr. Gabbard said.
 

Making the diagnosis

As there is currently no gold standard for the diagnosis of GERD, diagnosis is based on a combination of symptoms, endoscopic evaluation of esophageal mucosa, reflux monitoring, and response to therapeutic intervention, the guideline says.

For patients with classic symptoms of heartburn and regurgitation with no alarm symptoms, the authors recommend an 8-week trial of empiric once-daily PPIs before a meal. If the patient responds, the guideline recommends attempting to discontinue the medication.

The guideline recommends diagnostic endoscopy after PPIs are stopped for 2-4 weeks in patients whose classic symptoms fail to respond adequately to the 8-week empiric PPI trial or in those whose symptoms return when PPIs are discontinued.

For patients with chest pain but no heartburn who have undergone an adequate evaluation to exclude heart disease, the guideline advises objective testing for GERD (endoscopy and/or reflux monitoring).

The use of barium swallow solely as a diagnostic test for GERD is not recommended.

Endoscopy should be the first test for evaluating patients presenting with dysphagia or other alarm symptoms, such as weight loss and gastrointestinal bleeding, as well as for patients with risk factors for Barrett’s esophagus.

For patients in whom the diagnosis of GERD is suspected but unclear and endoscopy fails to show objective evidence of GERD, the guidelines advise reflux monitoring off therapy to establish the diagnosis.

The guideline recommends against reflux monitoring off therapy solely as a diagnostic test for GERD in patients with known endoscopic evidence of Los Angeles grade C or D reflux esophagitis or in patients with long-segment Barrett’s esophagus.

High-resolution manometry solely as a diagnostic test for GERD is also not recommended.
 

Medical management of GERD

Recommendations for medical management of GERD include weight loss in patients who are overweight or obese, avoidance of meals within 2-3 hours of bedtime, avoidance of tobacco products and “trigger foods,” and elevation of the head of the bed for nighttime symptoms.

Treatment with a PPI is recommended over histamine₂-receptor antagonists for healing and maintenance of healing of eosinophilic esophagitis. Taking a PPI 30-60 minutes prior to a meal rather than at bedtime is recommended.

“Use of the lowest effective PPI dose is recommended and logical but must be individualized,” the guideline states.

There is “conceptual rationale” for a trial of switching PPIs for patients who don’t respond to one PPI. However, switching more than once to another PPI “cannot be supported,” the guideline says.

Dr. Gabbard said the advice about switching PPIs in nonresponders is particularly helpful.

“In clinical practice, I see patients who try one PPI, and if it doesn’t work, their doctor puts them on another PPI, then another and another, until they get through five PPIs and gotten nowhere,” he said in an interview.

“This new guideline is very helpful in saying, if a patient has GERD symptoms that do not respond to a PPI, you can do one switch. But, if that doesn’t work, have a low threshold to perform pH testing to determine if the patient truly has reflux or not,” Dr. Gabbard said.

“Some studies have suggested that up to 75% of PPI nonresponders actually don’t have reflux. They have functional heartburn, which is not reflux and is treated without PPIs,” he noted.

One area of controversy relates to abrupt PPI discontinuation and potential rebound acid hypersecretion, resulting in increased reflux symptoms. While this has been found in healthy control patients, strong evidence for an increase in symptoms after abrupt PPI withdrawal is lacking.

The guideline makes “no definitive recommendation as to whether weaning or stopping PPIs cold turkey is a better approach, due to a lack of evidence,” Dr. Katz said in an interview.

For patients with GERD without erosive esophagitis or Barrett’s esophagus and whose symptoms resolve with PPI therapy, the guideline says an attempt should be made to discontinue PPI therapy or to switch to on-demand therapy in which a PPI is taken only when symptoms occur and is stopped when they are relieved.

For patients with Los Angeles grade C or D esophagitis, the recommendation is for maintenance PPI therapy indefinitely or antireflux surgery.

Dr. Gabbard said it’s “nice to have in writing from the ACG that patients with erosive esophagitis or Barrett’s esophagus – those who truly need a PPI – should be on indefinite PPI therapy, because the benefit of a PPI far outweighs the theoretical risks.”

The research had no financial support. Dr. Katz has served as consultant for Phathom Pharma and Medtronic, has received research support from Diversatek and royalties from UpToDate, and serves on the Medscape Gastroenterology advisory board. Dr. Gabbard disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For the first time since 2013, the American College of Gastroenterology has issued updated evidence-based recommendations and practical guidance on the evaluation and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), including pharmacologic, lifestyle, surgical, and endoscopic management.

Over the past 8 years, understanding of the varied presentations of GERD, enhancements in diagnostic testing, and approach to patient management have evolved, and there has been closer scrutiny of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy and its potential side effects, the guideline authors said.

While PPIs remain the “medical treatment of choice” for GERD, multiple studies have raised questions about adverse events, they noted.

“We now know a lot more about PPI adverse events in the sense that we have another 8 years of experience” since the 2013 guideline, first author Philip O. Katz, MD, professor of medicine and director of motility laboratories at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, added in an interview.

This update emphasizes the importance of making an accurate diagnosis and recommends PPI therapy “when patients really have GERD and being careful to use the lowest effective dose,” Dr. Katz said.

The guideline was published online Nov. 22, 2021, in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Benefits outweigh risks

The guideline suggests telling patients that PPIs are the most effective medical treatment for GERD.

Some studies have identified an association between the long-term use of PPIs and the development of several adverse conditions, including intestinal infections, pneumonia, stomach cancer, osteoporosis-related bone fractures, chronic kidney disease, deficiencies of certain vitamins and minerals, heart attacks, strokes, dementia, and early death.

Clinicians should emphasize, however, that these studies have flaws, are not considered definitive, and do not establish a cause-and-effect relationship between PPIs and the adverse conditions.

They should also emphasize to patients that high-quality studies have found that PPIs do not significantly raise the risk of any of these conditions except intestinal infections.

Patients should be told that, for the treatment of GERD, “gastroenterologists generally agree that the well-established benefits of PPIs far outweigh their theoretical risks.”

“Everything in this guideline makes sense,” Scott Gabbard, MD, gastroenterologist and section head, Center for Neurogastroenterology and Motility, Cleveland Clinic, who wasn’t involved in the guideline development, said in an interview.

“A PPI trial for anyone with typical GERD symptoms and having those who respond taper to the lowest effective dose is still the first line for anyone with GERD,” Dr. Gabbard said.
 

Making the diagnosis

As there is currently no gold standard for the diagnosis of GERD, diagnosis is based on a combination of symptoms, endoscopic evaluation of esophageal mucosa, reflux monitoring, and response to therapeutic intervention, the guideline says.

For patients with classic symptoms of heartburn and regurgitation with no alarm symptoms, the authors recommend an 8-week trial of empiric once-daily PPIs before a meal. If the patient responds, the guideline recommends attempting to discontinue the medication.

The guideline recommends diagnostic endoscopy after PPIs are stopped for 2-4 weeks in patients whose classic symptoms fail to respond adequately to the 8-week empiric PPI trial or in those whose symptoms return when PPIs are discontinued.

For patients with chest pain but no heartburn who have undergone an adequate evaluation to exclude heart disease, the guideline advises objective testing for GERD (endoscopy and/or reflux monitoring).

The use of barium swallow solely as a diagnostic test for GERD is not recommended.

Endoscopy should be the first test for evaluating patients presenting with dysphagia or other alarm symptoms, such as weight loss and gastrointestinal bleeding, as well as for patients with risk factors for Barrett’s esophagus.

For patients in whom the diagnosis of GERD is suspected but unclear and endoscopy fails to show objective evidence of GERD, the guidelines advise reflux monitoring off therapy to establish the diagnosis.

The guideline recommends against reflux monitoring off therapy solely as a diagnostic test for GERD in patients with known endoscopic evidence of Los Angeles grade C or D reflux esophagitis or in patients with long-segment Barrett’s esophagus.

High-resolution manometry solely as a diagnostic test for GERD is also not recommended.
 

Medical management of GERD

Recommendations for medical management of GERD include weight loss in patients who are overweight or obese, avoidance of meals within 2-3 hours of bedtime, avoidance of tobacco products and “trigger foods,” and elevation of the head of the bed for nighttime symptoms.

Treatment with a PPI is recommended over histamine₂-receptor antagonists for healing and maintenance of healing of eosinophilic esophagitis. Taking a PPI 30-60 minutes prior to a meal rather than at bedtime is recommended.

“Use of the lowest effective PPI dose is recommended and logical but must be individualized,” the guideline states.

There is “conceptual rationale” for a trial of switching PPIs for patients who don’t respond to one PPI. However, switching more than once to another PPI “cannot be supported,” the guideline says.

Dr. Gabbard said the advice about switching PPIs in nonresponders is particularly helpful.

“In clinical practice, I see patients who try one PPI, and if it doesn’t work, their doctor puts them on another PPI, then another and another, until they get through five PPIs and gotten nowhere,” he said in an interview.

“This new guideline is very helpful in saying, if a patient has GERD symptoms that do not respond to a PPI, you can do one switch. But, if that doesn’t work, have a low threshold to perform pH testing to determine if the patient truly has reflux or not,” Dr. Gabbard said.

“Some studies have suggested that up to 75% of PPI nonresponders actually don’t have reflux. They have functional heartburn, which is not reflux and is treated without PPIs,” he noted.

One area of controversy relates to abrupt PPI discontinuation and potential rebound acid hypersecretion, resulting in increased reflux symptoms. While this has been found in healthy control patients, strong evidence for an increase in symptoms after abrupt PPI withdrawal is lacking.

The guideline makes “no definitive recommendation as to whether weaning or stopping PPIs cold turkey is a better approach, due to a lack of evidence,” Dr. Katz said in an interview.

For patients with GERD without erosive esophagitis or Barrett’s esophagus and whose symptoms resolve with PPI therapy, the guideline says an attempt should be made to discontinue PPI therapy or to switch to on-demand therapy in which a PPI is taken only when symptoms occur and is stopped when they are relieved.

For patients with Los Angeles grade C or D esophagitis, the recommendation is for maintenance PPI therapy indefinitely or antireflux surgery.

Dr. Gabbard said it’s “nice to have in writing from the ACG that patients with erosive esophagitis or Barrett’s esophagus – those who truly need a PPI – should be on indefinite PPI therapy, because the benefit of a PPI far outweighs the theoretical risks.”

The research had no financial support. Dr. Katz has served as consultant for Phathom Pharma and Medtronic, has received research support from Diversatek and royalties from UpToDate, and serves on the Medscape Gastroenterology advisory board. Dr. Gabbard disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For the first time since 2013, the American College of Gastroenterology has issued updated evidence-based recommendations and practical guidance on the evaluation and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), including pharmacologic, lifestyle, surgical, and endoscopic management.

Over the past 8 years, understanding of the varied presentations of GERD, enhancements in diagnostic testing, and approach to patient management have evolved, and there has been closer scrutiny of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy and its potential side effects, the guideline authors said.

While PPIs remain the “medical treatment of choice” for GERD, multiple studies have raised questions about adverse events, they noted.

“We now know a lot more about PPI adverse events in the sense that we have another 8 years of experience” since the 2013 guideline, first author Philip O. Katz, MD, professor of medicine and director of motility laboratories at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, added in an interview.

This update emphasizes the importance of making an accurate diagnosis and recommends PPI therapy “when patients really have GERD and being careful to use the lowest effective dose,” Dr. Katz said.

The guideline was published online Nov. 22, 2021, in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Benefits outweigh risks

The guideline suggests telling patients that PPIs are the most effective medical treatment for GERD.

Some studies have identified an association between the long-term use of PPIs and the development of several adverse conditions, including intestinal infections, pneumonia, stomach cancer, osteoporosis-related bone fractures, chronic kidney disease, deficiencies of certain vitamins and minerals, heart attacks, strokes, dementia, and early death.

Clinicians should emphasize, however, that these studies have flaws, are not considered definitive, and do not establish a cause-and-effect relationship between PPIs and the adverse conditions.

They should also emphasize to patients that high-quality studies have found that PPIs do not significantly raise the risk of any of these conditions except intestinal infections.

Patients should be told that, for the treatment of GERD, “gastroenterologists generally agree that the well-established benefits of PPIs far outweigh their theoretical risks.”

“Everything in this guideline makes sense,” Scott Gabbard, MD, gastroenterologist and section head, Center for Neurogastroenterology and Motility, Cleveland Clinic, who wasn’t involved in the guideline development, said in an interview.

“A PPI trial for anyone with typical GERD symptoms and having those who respond taper to the lowest effective dose is still the first line for anyone with GERD,” Dr. Gabbard said.
 

Making the diagnosis

As there is currently no gold standard for the diagnosis of GERD, diagnosis is based on a combination of symptoms, endoscopic evaluation of esophageal mucosa, reflux monitoring, and response to therapeutic intervention, the guideline says.

For patients with classic symptoms of heartburn and regurgitation with no alarm symptoms, the authors recommend an 8-week trial of empiric once-daily PPIs before a meal. If the patient responds, the guideline recommends attempting to discontinue the medication.

The guideline recommends diagnostic endoscopy after PPIs are stopped for 2-4 weeks in patients whose classic symptoms fail to respond adequately to the 8-week empiric PPI trial or in those whose symptoms return when PPIs are discontinued.

For patients with chest pain but no heartburn who have undergone an adequate evaluation to exclude heart disease, the guideline advises objective testing for GERD (endoscopy and/or reflux monitoring).

The use of barium swallow solely as a diagnostic test for GERD is not recommended.

Endoscopy should be the first test for evaluating patients presenting with dysphagia or other alarm symptoms, such as weight loss and gastrointestinal bleeding, as well as for patients with risk factors for Barrett’s esophagus.

For patients in whom the diagnosis of GERD is suspected but unclear and endoscopy fails to show objective evidence of GERD, the guidelines advise reflux monitoring off therapy to establish the diagnosis.

The guideline recommends against reflux monitoring off therapy solely as a diagnostic test for GERD in patients with known endoscopic evidence of Los Angeles grade C or D reflux esophagitis or in patients with long-segment Barrett’s esophagus.

High-resolution manometry solely as a diagnostic test for GERD is also not recommended.
 

Medical management of GERD

Recommendations for medical management of GERD include weight loss in patients who are overweight or obese, avoidance of meals within 2-3 hours of bedtime, avoidance of tobacco products and “trigger foods,” and elevation of the head of the bed for nighttime symptoms.

Treatment with a PPI is recommended over histamine₂-receptor antagonists for healing and maintenance of healing of eosinophilic esophagitis. Taking a PPI 30-60 minutes prior to a meal rather than at bedtime is recommended.

“Use of the lowest effective PPI dose is recommended and logical but must be individualized,” the guideline states.

There is “conceptual rationale” for a trial of switching PPIs for patients who don’t respond to one PPI. However, switching more than once to another PPI “cannot be supported,” the guideline says.

Dr. Gabbard said the advice about switching PPIs in nonresponders is particularly helpful.

“In clinical practice, I see patients who try one PPI, and if it doesn’t work, their doctor puts them on another PPI, then another and another, until they get through five PPIs and gotten nowhere,” he said in an interview.

“This new guideline is very helpful in saying, if a patient has GERD symptoms that do not respond to a PPI, you can do one switch. But, if that doesn’t work, have a low threshold to perform pH testing to determine if the patient truly has reflux or not,” Dr. Gabbard said.

“Some studies have suggested that up to 75% of PPI nonresponders actually don’t have reflux. They have functional heartburn, which is not reflux and is treated without PPIs,” he noted.

One area of controversy relates to abrupt PPI discontinuation and potential rebound acid hypersecretion, resulting in increased reflux symptoms. While this has been found in healthy control patients, strong evidence for an increase in symptoms after abrupt PPI withdrawal is lacking.

The guideline makes “no definitive recommendation as to whether weaning or stopping PPIs cold turkey is a better approach, due to a lack of evidence,” Dr. Katz said in an interview.

For patients with GERD without erosive esophagitis or Barrett’s esophagus and whose symptoms resolve with PPI therapy, the guideline says an attempt should be made to discontinue PPI therapy or to switch to on-demand therapy in which a PPI is taken only when symptoms occur and is stopped when they are relieved.

For patients with Los Angeles grade C or D esophagitis, the recommendation is for maintenance PPI therapy indefinitely or antireflux surgery.

Dr. Gabbard said it’s “nice to have in writing from the ACG that patients with erosive esophagitis or Barrett’s esophagus – those who truly need a PPI – should be on indefinite PPI therapy, because the benefit of a PPI far outweighs the theoretical risks.”

The research had no financial support. Dr. Katz has served as consultant for Phathom Pharma and Medtronic, has received research support from Diversatek and royalties from UpToDate, and serves on the Medscape Gastroenterology advisory board. Dr. Gabbard disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adolescents and adults younger than age 21 who develop myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination frequently have abnormal findings on cardiac MRI (cMRI) but most have a mild clinical course with rapid resolution of symptoms, a new study concludes.

• Most patients were male (90.6%), White (66.2%) and with a median age of 15.8 years.
• Suspected myocarditis occurred in 136 patients (97.8%) following mRNA vaccine, with 131 (94.2%) following the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine; 128 cases (91.4%) occurred after the second dose.
• Symptoms started a median of 2 days (range 0 to 22 days) following vaccination administration.
• Chest pain was the most common symptom (99.3%), with fever present in 30.9% of patients and shortness of breath in 27.3%.
• Patients were treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (81.3%), intravenous immunoglobulin (21.6%), glucocorticoids (21.6%), colchicine (7.9%) or no anti-inflammatory therapies (8.6%).
• Twenty-six patients (18.7%) were admitted to the intensive care unit; 2 received inotropic/vasoactive support; none required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or died.
• Median time spent in the hospital was 2 days.
• A total of 111 patients had elevated troponin I (8.12 ng/mL) and 28 had elevated troponin T (0.61 ng/mL).
• More than two-thirds (69.8%) had abnormal electrocardiograms and/or arrhythmias (7 with nonsustained ventricular tachycardia).
• Twenty-six patients (18.7%) had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 55% on echocardiogram; LVEF had returned to normal in the 25 who returned for follow-up.
• 75 of 97 patients (77.3%) who underwent cMRI at a median of 5 days from symptom onset had abnormal findings; 74 (76.3%) had late gadolinium enhancement, 54 (55.7%) had myocardial edema, and 49 (50.5%) met Lake Louise criteria for myocarditis.

“These data suggest that most cases of suspected COVID-19 vaccine–related myocarditis in people younger than 21 are mild and resolve quickly,” corresponding author Dongngan Truong, MD, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Utah and Primary Children’s Hospital, Salt Lake City, said in a statement.

“We were very happy to see that type of recovery. However, we are awaiting further studies to better understand the long-term outcomes of patients who have had COVID-19 vaccination-related myocarditis. We also need to study the risk factors and mechanisms for this rare complication,” Dr. Truong added.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones said these findings support the AHA’s position that COVID-19 vaccines are “safe, highly effective, and fundamental to saving lives, protecting our families and communities against COVID-19, and ending the pandemic.”

The study received no funding. Dr. Truong consults for Pfizer on vaccine-associated myocarditis. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

Adolescents and adults younger than age 21 who develop myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination frequently have abnormal findings on cardiac MRI (cMRI) but most have a mild clinical course with rapid resolution of symptoms, a new study concludes.

• Most patients were male (90.6%), White (66.2%) and with a median age of 15.8 years.
• Suspected myocarditis occurred in 136 patients (97.8%) following mRNA vaccine, with 131 (94.2%) following the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine; 128 cases (91.4%) occurred after the second dose.
• Symptoms started a median of 2 days (range 0 to 22 days) following vaccination administration.
• Chest pain was the most common symptom (99.3%), with fever present in 30.9% of patients and shortness of breath in 27.3%.
• Patients were treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (81.3%), intravenous immunoglobulin (21.6%), glucocorticoids (21.6%), colchicine (7.9%) or no anti-inflammatory therapies (8.6%).
• Twenty-six patients (18.7%) were admitted to the intensive care unit; 2 received inotropic/vasoactive support; none required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or died.
• Median time spent in the hospital was 2 days.
• A total of 111 patients had elevated troponin I (8.12 ng/mL) and 28 had elevated troponin T (0.61 ng/mL).
• More than two-thirds (69.8%) had abnormal electrocardiograms and/or arrhythmias (7 with nonsustained ventricular tachycardia).
• Twenty-six patients (18.7%) had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 55% on echocardiogram; LVEF had returned to normal in the 25 who returned for follow-up.
• 75 of 97 patients (77.3%) who underwent cMRI at a median of 5 days from symptom onset had abnormal findings; 74 (76.3%) had late gadolinium enhancement, 54 (55.7%) had myocardial edema, and 49 (50.5%) met Lake Louise criteria for myocarditis.

“These data suggest that most cases of suspected COVID-19 vaccine–related myocarditis in people younger than 21 are mild and resolve quickly,” corresponding author Dongngan Truong, MD, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Utah and Primary Children’s Hospital, Salt Lake City, said in a statement.

“We were very happy to see that type of recovery. However, we are awaiting further studies to better understand the long-term outcomes of patients who have had COVID-19 vaccination-related myocarditis. We also need to study the risk factors and mechanisms for this rare complication,” Dr. Truong added.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones said these findings support the AHA’s position that COVID-19 vaccines are “safe, highly effective, and fundamental to saving lives, protecting our families and communities against COVID-19, and ending the pandemic.”

The study received no funding. Dr. Truong consults for Pfizer on vaccine-associated myocarditis. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

Adolescents and adults younger than age 21 who develop myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination frequently have abnormal findings on cardiac MRI (cMRI) but most have a mild clinical course with rapid resolution of symptoms, a new study concludes.

• Most patients were male (90.6%), White (66.2%) and with a median age of 15.8 years.
• Suspected myocarditis occurred in 136 patients (97.8%) following mRNA vaccine, with 131 (94.2%) following the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine; 128 cases (91.4%) occurred after the second dose.
• Symptoms started a median of 2 days (range 0 to 22 days) following vaccination administration.
• Chest pain was the most common symptom (99.3%), with fever present in 30.9% of patients and shortness of breath in 27.3%.
• Patients were treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (81.3%), intravenous immunoglobulin (21.6%), glucocorticoids (21.6%), colchicine (7.9%) or no anti-inflammatory therapies (8.6%).
• Twenty-six patients (18.7%) were admitted to the intensive care unit; 2 received inotropic/vasoactive support; none required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or died.
• Median time spent in the hospital was 2 days.
• A total of 111 patients had elevated troponin I (8.12 ng/mL) and 28 had elevated troponin T (0.61 ng/mL).
• More than two-thirds (69.8%) had abnormal electrocardiograms and/or arrhythmias (7 with nonsustained ventricular tachycardia).
• Twenty-six patients (18.7%) had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 55% on echocardiogram; LVEF had returned to normal in the 25 who returned for follow-up.
• 75 of 97 patients (77.3%) who underwent cMRI at a median of 5 days from symptom onset had abnormal findings; 74 (76.3%) had late gadolinium enhancement, 54 (55.7%) had myocardial edema, and 49 (50.5%) met Lake Louise criteria for myocarditis.

“These data suggest that most cases of suspected COVID-19 vaccine–related myocarditis in people younger than 21 are mild and resolve quickly,” corresponding author Dongngan Truong, MD, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Utah and Primary Children’s Hospital, Salt Lake City, said in a statement.

“We were very happy to see that type of recovery. However, we are awaiting further studies to better understand the long-term outcomes of patients who have had COVID-19 vaccination-related myocarditis. We also need to study the risk factors and mechanisms for this rare complication,” Dr. Truong added.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones said these findings support the AHA’s position that COVID-19 vaccines are “safe, highly effective, and fundamental to saving lives, protecting our families and communities against COVID-19, and ending the pandemic.”

The study received no funding. Dr. Truong consults for Pfizer on vaccine-associated myocarditis. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

Higher resting heart rate (RHR) is associated with increased risk for dementia and accelerated cognitive decline in older adults, independent of the presence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, new research shows.

“RHR is easy to measure and might be used to identify older people potentially at high risk of dementia and cognitive decline for early interventions,” Yume Imahori, MD, PhD, with the Aging Research Center, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, said in an interview.

“Health care professionals should be aware of potential cognitive consequences associated with elevated RHR in older people and may advise older people with high RHR to have a follow-up assessment of cognitive function,” Dr. Imahori said.

The study was published online Dec. 3, 2021, in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.
 

Heart-brain connection

The findings are based on 2,147 adults (62% women) aged 60 years and older (mean age, 70.6 years) from the population-based Swedish National Aging and Care in Kungsholmen (SNAC-K) study. All were free of dementia at baseline and were followed regularly from 2001-2004 to 2013-2016.

The average RHR at baseline was 65.7 bpm. Individuals in higher RHR groups were older, less educated, and were more likely to be smokers and sedentary and to have hypertension. There were no differences among RHR groups in the prevalence of CVD at baseline.

During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 289 participants were diagnosed with dementia.

In the fully adjusted model, participants with RHR of 80 bpm or higher had a 55% increased risk of developing dementia, compared with peers with lower RHR of 60 to 69 bpm (hazard ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.06-2.27).

“This association was not due to underlying cardiovascular diseases such as atrial fibrillation and heart failure, which is important because elevated RHR is often related to heart disease,” Dr. Imahori said in an interview.

Regarding cognitive function, Mini-Mental State Examination scores declined over time during the follow-up period in all RHR groups, but participants with RHR 70-79 and 80+ bpm had a greater decline, compared with those with lower RHR of 60-69 bpm.

Dr. Imahori said these findings are in line with data from the U.S. Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study linking elevated RHR of 80+ bpm in midlife to dementia and cognitive decline in late life.
 

Public health implications

Reached for comment, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific programs and outreach, said this study adds to the “growing body of research showing the health of the heart and brain are closely connected. However, this study only shows a correlation between resting heart rate and cognition, not causation. More research is needed.

“Evidence shows that other risk factors for cardiovascular disease and stroke – obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes – negatively impact your cognitive health,” Dr. Sexton said in an interview.

“The Alzheimer’s Association believes the conversation about heart health management is something everyone should be having with their doctor,” she said.

“There are things you can do today to lower your risk for cardiovascular disease, including regular exercise and maintaining a healthy diet. Improving your heart health is an important step to maintaining your brain health as you age,” Dr. Sexton added.

SNAC-K is supported by the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs and the participating county councils and municipalities and in part by additional grants from the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare. Dr. Imahori and Dr. Sexton disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Higher resting heart rate (RHR) is associated with increased risk for dementia and accelerated cognitive decline in older adults, independent of the presence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, new research shows.

“RHR is easy to measure and might be used to identify older people potentially at high risk of dementia and cognitive decline for early interventions,” Yume Imahori, MD, PhD, with the Aging Research Center, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, said in an interview.

“Health care professionals should be aware of potential cognitive consequences associated with elevated RHR in older people and may advise older people with high RHR to have a follow-up assessment of cognitive function,” Dr. Imahori said.

The study was published online Dec. 3, 2021, in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.
 

Heart-brain connection

The findings are based on 2,147 adults (62% women) aged 60 years and older (mean age, 70.6 years) from the population-based Swedish National Aging and Care in Kungsholmen (SNAC-K) study. All were free of dementia at baseline and were followed regularly from 2001-2004 to 2013-2016.

The average RHR at baseline was 65.7 bpm. Individuals in higher RHR groups were older, less educated, and were more likely to be smokers and sedentary and to have hypertension. There were no differences among RHR groups in the prevalence of CVD at baseline.

During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 289 participants were diagnosed with dementia.

In the fully adjusted model, participants with RHR of 80 bpm or higher had a 55% increased risk of developing dementia, compared with peers with lower RHR of 60 to 69 bpm (hazard ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.06-2.27).

“This association was not due to underlying cardiovascular diseases such as atrial fibrillation and heart failure, which is important because elevated RHR is often related to heart disease,” Dr. Imahori said in an interview.

Regarding cognitive function, Mini-Mental State Examination scores declined over time during the follow-up period in all RHR groups, but participants with RHR 70-79 and 80+ bpm had a greater decline, compared with those with lower RHR of 60-69 bpm.

Dr. Imahori said these findings are in line with data from the U.S. Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study linking elevated RHR of 80+ bpm in midlife to dementia and cognitive decline in late life.
 

Public health implications

Reached for comment, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific programs and outreach, said this study adds to the “growing body of research showing the health of the heart and brain are closely connected. However, this study only shows a correlation between resting heart rate and cognition, not causation. More research is needed.

“Evidence shows that other risk factors for cardiovascular disease and stroke – obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes – negatively impact your cognitive health,” Dr. Sexton said in an interview.

“The Alzheimer’s Association believes the conversation about heart health management is something everyone should be having with their doctor,” she said.

“There are things you can do today to lower your risk for cardiovascular disease, including regular exercise and maintaining a healthy diet. Improving your heart health is an important step to maintaining your brain health as you age,” Dr. Sexton added.

SNAC-K is supported by the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs and the participating county councils and municipalities and in part by additional grants from the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare. Dr. Imahori and Dr. Sexton disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Higher resting heart rate (RHR) is associated with increased risk for dementia and accelerated cognitive decline in older adults, independent of the presence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, new research shows.

“RHR is easy to measure and might be used to identify older people potentially at high risk of dementia and cognitive decline for early interventions,” Yume Imahori, MD, PhD, with the Aging Research Center, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, said in an interview.

“Health care professionals should be aware of potential cognitive consequences associated with elevated RHR in older people and may advise older people with high RHR to have a follow-up assessment of cognitive function,” Dr. Imahori said.

The study was published online Dec. 3, 2021, in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.
 

Heart-brain connection

The findings are based on 2,147 adults (62% women) aged 60 years and older (mean age, 70.6 years) from the population-based Swedish National Aging and Care in Kungsholmen (SNAC-K) study. All were free of dementia at baseline and were followed regularly from 2001-2004 to 2013-2016.

The average RHR at baseline was 65.7 bpm. Individuals in higher RHR groups were older, less educated, and were more likely to be smokers and sedentary and to have hypertension. There were no differences among RHR groups in the prevalence of CVD at baseline.

During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 289 participants were diagnosed with dementia.

In the fully adjusted model, participants with RHR of 80 bpm or higher had a 55% increased risk of developing dementia, compared with peers with lower RHR of 60 to 69 bpm (hazard ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.06-2.27).

“This association was not due to underlying cardiovascular diseases such as atrial fibrillation and heart failure, which is important because elevated RHR is often related to heart disease,” Dr. Imahori said in an interview.

Regarding cognitive function, Mini-Mental State Examination scores declined over time during the follow-up period in all RHR groups, but participants with RHR 70-79 and 80+ bpm had a greater decline, compared with those with lower RHR of 60-69 bpm.

Dr. Imahori said these findings are in line with data from the U.S. Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study linking elevated RHR of 80+ bpm in midlife to dementia and cognitive decline in late life.
 

Public health implications

Reached for comment, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific programs and outreach, said this study adds to the “growing body of research showing the health of the heart and brain are closely connected. However, this study only shows a correlation between resting heart rate and cognition, not causation. More research is needed.

“Evidence shows that other risk factors for cardiovascular disease and stroke – obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes – negatively impact your cognitive health,” Dr. Sexton said in an interview.

“The Alzheimer’s Association believes the conversation about heart health management is something everyone should be having with their doctor,” she said.

“There are things you can do today to lower your risk for cardiovascular disease, including regular exercise and maintaining a healthy diet. Improving your heart health is an important step to maintaining your brain health as you age,” Dr. Sexton added.

SNAC-K is supported by the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs and the participating county councils and municipalities and in part by additional grants from the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare. Dr. Imahori and Dr. Sexton disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Blood pressure control declined in both men and women with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States in 2020, especially among women and older adults, according to a new analysis.

Ingram Publishing/ThinkStock

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

Blood pressure control declined in both men and women with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States in 2020, especially among women and older adults, according to a new analysis.

Ingram Publishing/ThinkStock

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

Blood pressure control declined in both men and women with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States in 2020, especially among women and older adults, according to a new analysis.

Ingram Publishing/ThinkStock

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

A French population-based study provides further evidence that the BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine does not increase the short-term risk for serious cardiovascular adverse events in older people.

The study showed no increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or pulmonary embolism (PE) following vaccination in adults aged 75 years or older in the 14 days following vaccination.

“These findings regarding the BNT162b2 vaccine’s short-term cardiovascular safety profile in older people are reassuring. They should be taken into account by doctors when considering implementing a third dose of the vaccine in older people,” Marie Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, PhD, with the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety, Saint-Denis, France, said in an interview.

Ridofranz/Getty Images

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

A French population-based study provides further evidence that the BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine does not increase the short-term risk for serious cardiovascular adverse events in older people.

The study showed no increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or pulmonary embolism (PE) following vaccination in adults aged 75 years or older in the 14 days following vaccination.

“These findings regarding the BNT162b2 vaccine’s short-term cardiovascular safety profile in older people are reassuring. They should be taken into account by doctors when considering implementing a third dose of the vaccine in older people,” Marie Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, PhD, with the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety, Saint-Denis, France, said in an interview.

Ridofranz/Getty Images

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

A French population-based study provides further evidence that the BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine does not increase the short-term risk for serious cardiovascular adverse events in older people.

The study showed no increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or pulmonary embolism (PE) following vaccination in adults aged 75 years or older in the 14 days following vaccination.

“These findings regarding the BNT162b2 vaccine’s short-term cardiovascular safety profile in older people are reassuring. They should be taken into account by doctors when considering implementing a third dose of the vaccine in older people,” Marie Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, PhD, with the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety, Saint-Denis, France, said in an interview.

Ridofranz/Getty Images

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

Adults with celiac disease (CD) do not appear to be at increased risk of having a more severe disease course or worse outcomes from COVID-19, according to a new study.

Patients with CD are a “population of interest” in terms of the clinical outcomes of COVID-19, Emad Mansoor, MD, Digestive Health Institute, University Hospitals of Cleveland, and colleagues said.

There is emerging evidence that chronic disorders may have an impact on COVID-19 outcomes. But until now, the consequences of COVID-19 in patients with CD have been unclear.

The study was published online Nov. 11, 2021, in Gut.

To investigate, Dr. Mansoor and colleagues used the TriNetX EHR database to identify 599 patients with CD and confirmed COVID-19 and 810,972 patients without CD but with confirmed COVID-19 from 51 health care organizations in the United States.

After propensity-score matching, the CD and non-CD cohorts were “relatively balanced”; there were 598 patients in each group.

Before propensity-score matching, COVID-19 patients with CD were significantly more likely to be hospitalized than peers without CD (18.2% vs. 11.3%; odds ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-2.14; P < .0001).

After matching, however, this association became insignificant (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.71-1.11; P = .0906).

Before matching, patients with CD were also more apt to develop blood clots (5.3% vs. 2.1%; OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.88-3.83; P < .0001) but not after matching (OR, 0.938; 95% CI, 0.57-1.54; P = .800).

The same pattern was observed for the two other outcomes of interest: mortality and need for care in the ICU.

Overall, there were no significant differences among any of the measured outcomes between CD and non-CD patients with COVID-19 after propensity-score matching, Dr. Mansoor and colleagues reported.

“This is the largest study characterizing CD patients with COVID-19 to date to systematically investigate outcomes of CD patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Mansoor and colleagues wrote.

They also say that their findings are in line with a recent population-based study from Sweden, which found no significant increase in risk for hospitalization, severe COVID-19, or increase in death between CD and non-CD patients with COVID-19.

“Although reassuring, this study is all about outcomes in individuals with diagnosed CD and the potential impact of COVID-19 in patients with undiagnosed CD remains unknown,” the researchers wrote.

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

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

Adults with celiac disease (CD) do not appear to be at increased risk of having a more severe disease course or worse outcomes from COVID-19, according to a new study.

Patients with CD are a “population of interest” in terms of the clinical outcomes of COVID-19, Emad Mansoor, MD, Digestive Health Institute, University Hospitals of Cleveland, and colleagues said.

There is emerging evidence that chronic disorders may have an impact on COVID-19 outcomes. But until now, the consequences of COVID-19 in patients with CD have been unclear.

The study was published online Nov. 11, 2021, in Gut.

To investigate, Dr. Mansoor and colleagues used the TriNetX EHR database to identify 599 patients with CD and confirmed COVID-19 and 810,972 patients without CD but with confirmed COVID-19 from 51 health care organizations in the United States.

After propensity-score matching, the CD and non-CD cohorts were “relatively balanced”; there were 598 patients in each group.

Before propensity-score matching, COVID-19 patients with CD were significantly more likely to be hospitalized than peers without CD (18.2% vs. 11.3%; odds ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-2.14; P < .0001).

After matching, however, this association became insignificant (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.71-1.11; P = .0906).

Before matching, patients with CD were also more apt to develop blood clots (5.3% vs. 2.1%; OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.88-3.83; P < .0001) but not after matching (OR, 0.938; 95% CI, 0.57-1.54; P = .800).

The same pattern was observed for the two other outcomes of interest: mortality and need for care in the ICU.

Overall, there were no significant differences among any of the measured outcomes between CD and non-CD patients with COVID-19 after propensity-score matching, Dr. Mansoor and colleagues reported.

“This is the largest study characterizing CD patients with COVID-19 to date to systematically investigate outcomes of CD patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Mansoor and colleagues wrote.

They also say that their findings are in line with a recent population-based study from Sweden, which found no significant increase in risk for hospitalization, severe COVID-19, or increase in death between CD and non-CD patients with COVID-19.

“Although reassuring, this study is all about outcomes in individuals with diagnosed CD and the potential impact of COVID-19 in patients with undiagnosed CD remains unknown,” the researchers wrote.

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

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

Adults with celiac disease (CD) do not appear to be at increased risk of having a more severe disease course or worse outcomes from COVID-19, according to a new study.

Patients with CD are a “population of interest” in terms of the clinical outcomes of COVID-19, Emad Mansoor, MD, Digestive Health Institute, University Hospitals of Cleveland, and colleagues said.

There is emerging evidence that chronic disorders may have an impact on COVID-19 outcomes. But until now, the consequences of COVID-19 in patients with CD have been unclear.

The study was published online Nov. 11, 2021, in Gut.

To investigate, Dr. Mansoor and colleagues used the TriNetX EHR database to identify 599 patients with CD and confirmed COVID-19 and 810,972 patients without CD but with confirmed COVID-19 from 51 health care organizations in the United States.

After propensity-score matching, the CD and non-CD cohorts were “relatively balanced”; there were 598 patients in each group.

Before propensity-score matching, COVID-19 patients with CD were significantly more likely to be hospitalized than peers without CD (18.2% vs. 11.3%; odds ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-2.14; P < .0001).

After matching, however, this association became insignificant (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.71-1.11; P = .0906).

Before matching, patients with CD were also more apt to develop blood clots (5.3% vs. 2.1%; OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.88-3.83; P < .0001) but not after matching (OR, 0.938; 95% CI, 0.57-1.54; P = .800).

The same pattern was observed for the two other outcomes of interest: mortality and need for care in the ICU.

Overall, there were no significant differences among any of the measured outcomes between CD and non-CD patients with COVID-19 after propensity-score matching, Dr. Mansoor and colleagues reported.

“This is the largest study characterizing CD patients with COVID-19 to date to systematically investigate outcomes of CD patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Mansoor and colleagues wrote.

They also say that their findings are in line with a recent population-based study from Sweden, which found no significant increase in risk for hospitalization, severe COVID-19, or increase in death between CD and non-CD patients with COVID-19.

“Although reassuring, this study is all about outcomes in individuals with diagnosed CD and the potential impact of COVID-19 in patients with undiagnosed CD remains unknown,” the researchers wrote.

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

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

Physical activity levels may decline during major life events, and it’s important for health care professionals to encourage patients to maintain regular physical activity during times of significant changes in their lives, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.

With this statement, “We hope health care providers, public health workers, and individuals understand that a major life change can lead to decreases in physical activity or increases in sedentary behavior,” writing group chair Abbi D. Lane-Cordova, PhD, said in an interview.

The statement includes “tips for screening for physical activity and talking to people about their activity during these big life events and resources that can be used by health care providers to help people achieve healthy levels of physical activity,” said Dr. Lane-Cordova, assistant professor in exercise science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

The statement was published online Dec. 1 in the journal Circulation.

The AHA Committee on Physical Activity, part of the organization’s Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, began discussing this topic back in 2019, Dr. Lane-Cordova explained.

“We spoke as a group about how much activity levels can change when something big happens in life, like becoming a parent or retiring. The change in activity behavior (physical activity or sedentary behavior) is important because these activity behaviors can influence heart health,” she said.

The group started work on the scientific statement in early 2020 – “and then the pandemic hit, and it seemed more important than ever to create awareness and a resource for people to help improve, or at least maintain, favorable activity behaviors when there’s a profound change or event in life,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said.
 

Some more vulnerable than others

The writing group examined data on 17 different life events or transitions and found evidence that physical activity levels may decline during nine events: beginning a new school (elementary, middle, high school, or college); a first job or career change; a marriage or civil union; pregnancy; parenting; retirement; or moving into a long-term care facility.

The authors also identified individuals who may be particularly susceptible to lower levels of physical activity in general and during important life events. They include those with lower levels of education; those who live alone; those who lack access to a safe outdoor space; Black Americans; some members of the LGBTQ+ community; and women who are pregnant and new parents.

They offer practical strategies for health care professionals to support routine physical activity levels during major life events and transitions. These include asking simple questions about how life transitions may be changing physical activity patterns and encouraging the use of wearable step trackers to monitor levels and changes.

“It’s important to maintain or improve physical activity when major life events happen, which is often a time when exercise is most needed,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said in a news release.

“Clinicians should express compassion as they ask about life transitions and initiate conversations about physical activity during life events and transitions,” the writing group advises.

The group also says its important “to look beyond the health care setting and engage organizations, communities, workplaces, faith-based communities, and assisted living facilities to promote physical activity.”

The statement provides a list of resources for individuals and health care professionals, many of which are free and online.

This research had no commercial funding. Members of the writing group have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physical activity levels may decline during major life events, and it’s important for health care professionals to encourage patients to maintain regular physical activity during times of significant changes in their lives, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.

With this statement, “We hope health care providers, public health workers, and individuals understand that a major life change can lead to decreases in physical activity or increases in sedentary behavior,” writing group chair Abbi D. Lane-Cordova, PhD, said in an interview.

The statement includes “tips for screening for physical activity and talking to people about their activity during these big life events and resources that can be used by health care providers to help people achieve healthy levels of physical activity,” said Dr. Lane-Cordova, assistant professor in exercise science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

The statement was published online Dec. 1 in the journal Circulation.

The AHA Committee on Physical Activity, part of the organization’s Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, began discussing this topic back in 2019, Dr. Lane-Cordova explained.

“We spoke as a group about how much activity levels can change when something big happens in life, like becoming a parent or retiring. The change in activity behavior (physical activity or sedentary behavior) is important because these activity behaviors can influence heart health,” she said.

The group started work on the scientific statement in early 2020 – “and then the pandemic hit, and it seemed more important than ever to create awareness and a resource for people to help improve, or at least maintain, favorable activity behaviors when there’s a profound change or event in life,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said.
 

Some more vulnerable than others

The writing group examined data on 17 different life events or transitions and found evidence that physical activity levels may decline during nine events: beginning a new school (elementary, middle, high school, or college); a first job or career change; a marriage or civil union; pregnancy; parenting; retirement; or moving into a long-term care facility.

The authors also identified individuals who may be particularly susceptible to lower levels of physical activity in general and during important life events. They include those with lower levels of education; those who live alone; those who lack access to a safe outdoor space; Black Americans; some members of the LGBTQ+ community; and women who are pregnant and new parents.

They offer practical strategies for health care professionals to support routine physical activity levels during major life events and transitions. These include asking simple questions about how life transitions may be changing physical activity patterns and encouraging the use of wearable step trackers to monitor levels and changes.

“It’s important to maintain or improve physical activity when major life events happen, which is often a time when exercise is most needed,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said in a news release.

“Clinicians should express compassion as they ask about life transitions and initiate conversations about physical activity during life events and transitions,” the writing group advises.

The group also says its important “to look beyond the health care setting and engage organizations, communities, workplaces, faith-based communities, and assisted living facilities to promote physical activity.”

The statement provides a list of resources for individuals and health care professionals, many of which are free and online.

This research had no commercial funding. Members of the writing group have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physical activity levels may decline during major life events, and it’s important for health care professionals to encourage patients to maintain regular physical activity during times of significant changes in their lives, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.

With this statement, “We hope health care providers, public health workers, and individuals understand that a major life change can lead to decreases in physical activity or increases in sedentary behavior,” writing group chair Abbi D. Lane-Cordova, PhD, said in an interview.

The statement includes “tips for screening for physical activity and talking to people about their activity during these big life events and resources that can be used by health care providers to help people achieve healthy levels of physical activity,” said Dr. Lane-Cordova, assistant professor in exercise science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

The statement was published online Dec. 1 in the journal Circulation.

The AHA Committee on Physical Activity, part of the organization’s Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, began discussing this topic back in 2019, Dr. Lane-Cordova explained.

“We spoke as a group about how much activity levels can change when something big happens in life, like becoming a parent or retiring. The change in activity behavior (physical activity or sedentary behavior) is important because these activity behaviors can influence heart health,” she said.

The group started work on the scientific statement in early 2020 – “and then the pandemic hit, and it seemed more important than ever to create awareness and a resource for people to help improve, or at least maintain, favorable activity behaviors when there’s a profound change or event in life,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said.
 

Some more vulnerable than others

The writing group examined data on 17 different life events or transitions and found evidence that physical activity levels may decline during nine events: beginning a new school (elementary, middle, high school, or college); a first job or career change; a marriage or civil union; pregnancy; parenting; retirement; or moving into a long-term care facility.

The authors also identified individuals who may be particularly susceptible to lower levels of physical activity in general and during important life events. They include those with lower levels of education; those who live alone; those who lack access to a safe outdoor space; Black Americans; some members of the LGBTQ+ community; and women who are pregnant and new parents.

They offer practical strategies for health care professionals to support routine physical activity levels during major life events and transitions. These include asking simple questions about how life transitions may be changing physical activity patterns and encouraging the use of wearable step trackers to monitor levels and changes.

“It’s important to maintain or improve physical activity when major life events happen, which is often a time when exercise is most needed,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said in a news release.

“Clinicians should express compassion as they ask about life transitions and initiate conversations about physical activity during life events and transitions,” the writing group advises.

The group also says its important “to look beyond the health care setting and engage organizations, communities, workplaces, faith-based communities, and assisted living facilities to promote physical activity.”

The statement provides a list of resources for individuals and health care professionals, many of which are free and online.

This research had no commercial funding. Members of the writing group have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New U.S. data show that the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is on the rise among people aged 50–54 years, mirroring the well-documented increases in early-onset CRC in persons younger than 50 years.

“It’s likely that the factors contributing to CRC at age 50–54 years are the same factors that contribute to early-onset CRC, which has increased in parallel,” Caitlin Murphy, PhD, MPH, with the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said in an interview.

“Many studies published in just the last year show that the well-known risk factors of CRC in older adults, such as obesity or sedentary lifestyle, are risk factors of CRC in younger adults. Growing evidence also suggests that early life exposures, or exposures in childhood, infancy, or even in the womb, play an important role,” Dr. Murphy said.

The study was published online October 28 in Gastroenterology .

Dr. Murphy and colleagues examined trends in age-specific CRC incidence rates for individuals aged 45–49, 50–54, and 55–59 years using the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.

During the period 1992–2018, there were a total of 101,609 cases of CRC among adults aged 45–59 years.

Further analysis showed that the CRC incidence rates rose from 23.4 to 34.0 per 100,000 among people aged 45–49 years and from 46.4 to 63.8 per 100,000 among those aged 50–54 years.

Conversely, incidence rates decreased among individuals aged 55–59 years, from 81.7 to 63.7 per 100,000 persons.

“Because of this opposing trend, or decreasing rates for age 55–59 years and increasing rates for age 50–54 years, incidence rates for the two age groups were nearly identical in 2016–18,” the researchers write.

They also found a “clear pattern” of increasing CRC incidence among adults in their early 50s, supporting the hypothesis that incidence rates increase at older ages as higher-risk generations mature, the researchers note.

These data send a clear message, Dr. Murphy told this news organization.

“Don’t delay colorectal cancer screening. Encourage on-time screening by discussing screening with patients before they reach the recommended age to initiate screening. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now recommends initiating average-risk screening at age 45 years,” Dr. Murphy said.
 

Concerning but not surprising

Rebecca Siegel, MPH, scientific director of Surveillance Research at the American Cancer Society, in Atlanta, who wasn’t involved in the study, said the results are “not surprising” and mirror the results of a 2017 study that showed that the incidence of CRC was increasing among individuals aged 50–54 years, as reported.

What’s “concerning,” Ms. Siegel said, is that people in this age group “have been recommended to be screened for CRC for decades. Hopefully, because the age to begin screening has been lowered from 50 to 45 years, this uptick will eventually flatten.”

David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, in Norfolk, Va., who also wasn’t involved in the study, said the increasing incidence is “concerning in this younger population, and similar to what is seen recently for the 45- to 49-year-old population.

“Recent data have linked dietary influences in the early development of precancerous colon polyps and colon cancer. The increased ingestion of processed foods and sugary beverages, most of which contain high fructose corn syrup, is very likely involved in the pathogenesis to explain these striking epidemiologic shifts,” Dr. Johnson said in an interview.

“These concerns will likely be compounded by the COVID-related adverse effects on people [in terms of] appropriate, timely colorectal cancer screening,” Dr. Johnson added.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Murphy has consulted for Freenome. Ms. Siegel and Dr. Johnson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

New U.S. data show that the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is on the rise among people aged 50–54 years, mirroring the well-documented increases in early-onset CRC in persons younger than 50 years.

“It’s likely that the factors contributing to CRC at age 50–54 years are the same factors that contribute to early-onset CRC, which has increased in parallel,” Caitlin Murphy, PhD, MPH, with the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said in an interview.

“Many studies published in just the last year show that the well-known risk factors of CRC in older adults, such as obesity or sedentary lifestyle, are risk factors of CRC in younger adults. Growing evidence also suggests that early life exposures, or exposures in childhood, infancy, or even in the womb, play an important role,” Dr. Murphy said.

The study was published online October 28 in Gastroenterology .

Dr. Murphy and colleagues examined trends in age-specific CRC incidence rates for individuals aged 45–49, 50–54, and 55–59 years using the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.

During the period 1992–2018, there were a total of 101,609 cases of CRC among adults aged 45–59 years.

Further analysis showed that the CRC incidence rates rose from 23.4 to 34.0 per 100,000 among people aged 45–49 years and from 46.4 to 63.8 per 100,000 among those aged 50–54 years.

Conversely, incidence rates decreased among individuals aged 55–59 years, from 81.7 to 63.7 per 100,000 persons.

“Because of this opposing trend, or decreasing rates for age 55–59 years and increasing rates for age 50–54 years, incidence rates for the two age groups were nearly identical in 2016–18,” the researchers write.

They also found a “clear pattern” of increasing CRC incidence among adults in their early 50s, supporting the hypothesis that incidence rates increase at older ages as higher-risk generations mature, the researchers note.

These data send a clear message, Dr. Murphy told this news organization.

“Don’t delay colorectal cancer screening. Encourage on-time screening by discussing screening with patients before they reach the recommended age to initiate screening. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now recommends initiating average-risk screening at age 45 years,” Dr. Murphy said.
 

Concerning but not surprising

Rebecca Siegel, MPH, scientific director of Surveillance Research at the American Cancer Society, in Atlanta, who wasn’t involved in the study, said the results are “not surprising” and mirror the results of a 2017 study that showed that the incidence of CRC was increasing among individuals aged 50–54 years, as reported.

What’s “concerning,” Ms. Siegel said, is that people in this age group “have been recommended to be screened for CRC for decades. Hopefully, because the age to begin screening has been lowered from 50 to 45 years, this uptick will eventually flatten.”

David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, in Norfolk, Va., who also wasn’t involved in the study, said the increasing incidence is “concerning in this younger population, and similar to what is seen recently for the 45- to 49-year-old population.

“Recent data have linked dietary influences in the early development of precancerous colon polyps and colon cancer. The increased ingestion of processed foods and sugary beverages, most of which contain high fructose corn syrup, is very likely involved in the pathogenesis to explain these striking epidemiologic shifts,” Dr. Johnson said in an interview.

“These concerns will likely be compounded by the COVID-related adverse effects on people [in terms of] appropriate, timely colorectal cancer screening,” Dr. Johnson added.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Murphy has consulted for Freenome. Ms. Siegel and Dr. Johnson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

New U.S. data show that the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is on the rise among people aged 50–54 years, mirroring the well-documented increases in early-onset CRC in persons younger than 50 years.

“It’s likely that the factors contributing to CRC at age 50–54 years are the same factors that contribute to early-onset CRC, which has increased in parallel,” Caitlin Murphy, PhD, MPH, with the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said in an interview.

“Many studies published in just the last year show that the well-known risk factors of CRC in older adults, such as obesity or sedentary lifestyle, are risk factors of CRC in younger adults. Growing evidence also suggests that early life exposures, or exposures in childhood, infancy, or even in the womb, play an important role,” Dr. Murphy said.

The study was published online October 28 in Gastroenterology .

Dr. Murphy and colleagues examined trends in age-specific CRC incidence rates for individuals aged 45–49, 50–54, and 55–59 years using the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.

During the period 1992–2018, there were a total of 101,609 cases of CRC among adults aged 45–59 years.

Further analysis showed that the CRC incidence rates rose from 23.4 to 34.0 per 100,000 among people aged 45–49 years and from 46.4 to 63.8 per 100,000 among those aged 50–54 years.

Conversely, incidence rates decreased among individuals aged 55–59 years, from 81.7 to 63.7 per 100,000 persons.

“Because of this opposing trend, or decreasing rates for age 55–59 years and increasing rates for age 50–54 years, incidence rates for the two age groups were nearly identical in 2016–18,” the researchers write.

They also found a “clear pattern” of increasing CRC incidence among adults in their early 50s, supporting the hypothesis that incidence rates increase at older ages as higher-risk generations mature, the researchers note.

These data send a clear message, Dr. Murphy told this news organization.

“Don’t delay colorectal cancer screening. Encourage on-time screening by discussing screening with patients before they reach the recommended age to initiate screening. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now recommends initiating average-risk screening at age 45 years,” Dr. Murphy said.
 

Concerning but not surprising

Rebecca Siegel, MPH, scientific director of Surveillance Research at the American Cancer Society, in Atlanta, who wasn’t involved in the study, said the results are “not surprising” and mirror the results of a 2017 study that showed that the incidence of CRC was increasing among individuals aged 50–54 years, as reported.

What’s “concerning,” Ms. Siegel said, is that people in this age group “have been recommended to be screened for CRC for decades. Hopefully, because the age to begin screening has been lowered from 50 to 45 years, this uptick will eventually flatten.”

David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, in Norfolk, Va., who also wasn’t involved in the study, said the increasing incidence is “concerning in this younger population, and similar to what is seen recently for the 45- to 49-year-old population.

“Recent data have linked dietary influences in the early development of precancerous colon polyps and colon cancer. The increased ingestion of processed foods and sugary beverages, most of which contain high fructose corn syrup, is very likely involved in the pathogenesis to explain these striking epidemiologic shifts,” Dr. Johnson said in an interview.

“These concerns will likely be compounded by the COVID-related adverse effects on people [in terms of] appropriate, timely colorectal cancer screening,” Dr. Johnson added.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Murphy has consulted for Freenome. Ms. Siegel and Dr. Johnson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A newly released position statement from the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) provides guidance to neurologists about counseling  patients with Alzheimer’s disease and their families about the controversial drug aducanumab (Aduhelm).

The statement includes ethical considerations and recommendations for informed consent, and the AAN notes that neurologists should ensure that patients understand all of the issues and uncertainties surrounding the use of aducanumab.

“Neurologists and other clinicians want to provide the best care to patients and families, particularly for a disease that is as challenging as Alzheimer’s. We hope that this statement can be a guide for clinicians in communicating with patients and families in order to carefully consider decisions about the use of aducanumab,” said lead author Winston Chiong, MD, PhD, University of California San Francisco Memory and Aging Center, and a member of the AAN’s Ethics, Law, and Humanities Committee.

The statement was published online Nov. 17 in Neurology.
 

Open, honest communication

The Food and Drug Administration approved the antiamyloid agent aducanumab based on two studies that were both stopped prematurely for futility. In subsequent post hoc analyses of the available data, one of those studies indicated a statistically significant, albeit small, benefit with high-dose aducanumab, while the other study continued to show no benefit.

The clinical importance of the small statistical benefit in the single trial for daily function is unclear, and aducanumab was also associated with brain inflammation and brain bleeds in more than one-third of patients who received the FDA-approved dose, which requires regular brain MRI monitoring.

All of this should be communicated to patients, the AAN advises.

Patients should know that while aducanumab reduces beta-amyloid plaques in the brain that are markers of Alzheimer’s disease, it remains unclear whether this provides any meaningful benefit.

The AAN adds that it is equally important to tell patients and families that aducanumab does not restore cognitive function and that there is insufficient data to offer it to people with moderate or advanced dementia or to those without evidence of beta-amyloid plaques.

It’s important to note that very few participants in the aducanumab trials were Hispanic, Black, or Indigenous. 

“Informed consent conversations with patients of populations underrepresented in clinical trials should include disclosure about the absence of safety and efficacy data in these groups,” the authors noted.
 

‘New territory’ for neurologists

“There are two aspects of aducanumab that are relatively new territory for us as neurologists,” Dr. Chiong said. One is the controversy about the evidence for the drug. “In the statement, we’ve tried to help clinicians communicate the uncertainty over aducanumab’s risks and potential benefits,” Dr. Chiong said. The other is the high cost of the drug and how it will be covered.

Aducanumab has a price tag of $56,000 per year, which does not include the cost of infusing the drug, required repeat imaging, and medical management.

The AAN estimates annual costs of prescribing aducanumab may top $100,000 per year. With Medicare generally covering 80%, patients and families must be told that the full costs of treatment may not be covered.

“Regarding cost, we probably don’t think often enough about what prescribing a drug means for an individual patient’s finances and for the health system,” said Dr. Chiong. “In particular, when patients are in Medicare we might assume their health care costs will be sufficiently covered, but because aducanumab is so expensive its use is likely to impose very significant costs on individual patients as well as to the Medicare program,” Dr. Chiong said.

“It is understandable why a new drug for Alzheimer’s disease generates so much interest, because while its approval has been controversial, it still offers a glimmer of hope to patients and their families,” AAN President Orly Avitzur, MD, said in a news release. “By using ethical principles to create this position statement, the American Academy of Neurology aims to help neurologists and other physicians transparently counsel patients and their families with a goal of providing the highest quality patient-centered care,” Dr. Avitzur said.

This statement was approved by the Ethics, Law, and Humanities Committee, a joint committee of the AAN, American Neurological Association, and Child Neurology Society.

This research had no targeted funding. Dr. Chiong has received personal compensation for serving on the Neuroethics Working Group of the National Institutes of Health BRAIN Initiative, and his institution has received research support from the National Institutes of Health. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

A newly released position statement from the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) provides guidance to neurologists about counseling  patients with Alzheimer’s disease and their families about the controversial drug aducanumab (Aduhelm).

The statement includes ethical considerations and recommendations for informed consent, and the AAN notes that neurologists should ensure that patients understand all of the issues and uncertainties surrounding the use of aducanumab.

“Neurologists and other clinicians want to provide the best care to patients and families, particularly for a disease that is as challenging as Alzheimer’s. We hope that this statement can be a guide for clinicians in communicating with patients and families in order to carefully consider decisions about the use of aducanumab,” said lead author Winston Chiong, MD, PhD, University of California San Francisco Memory and Aging Center, and a member of the AAN’s Ethics, Law, and Humanities Committee.

The statement was published online Nov. 17 in Neurology.
 

Open, honest communication

The Food and Drug Administration approved the antiamyloid agent aducanumab based on two studies that were both stopped prematurely for futility. In subsequent post hoc analyses of the available data, one of those studies indicated a statistically significant, albeit small, benefit with high-dose aducanumab, while the other study continued to show no benefit.

The clinical importance of the small statistical benefit in the single trial for daily function is unclear, and aducanumab was also associated with brain inflammation and brain bleeds in more than one-third of patients who received the FDA-approved dose, which requires regular brain MRI monitoring.

All of this should be communicated to patients, the AAN advises.

Patients should know that while aducanumab reduces beta-amyloid plaques in the brain that are markers of Alzheimer’s disease, it remains unclear whether this provides any meaningful benefit.

The AAN adds that it is equally important to tell patients and families that aducanumab does not restore cognitive function and that there is insufficient data to offer it to people with moderate or advanced dementia or to those without evidence of beta-amyloid plaques.

It’s important to note that very few participants in the aducanumab trials were Hispanic, Black, or Indigenous. 

“Informed consent conversations with patients of populations underrepresented in clinical trials should include disclosure about the absence of safety and efficacy data in these groups,” the authors noted.
 

‘New territory’ for neurologists

“There are two aspects of aducanumab that are relatively new territory for us as neurologists,” Dr. Chiong said. One is the controversy about the evidence for the drug. “In the statement, we’ve tried to help clinicians communicate the uncertainty over aducanumab’s risks and potential benefits,” Dr. Chiong said. The other is the high cost of the drug and how it will be covered.

Aducanumab has a price tag of $56,000 per year, which does not include the cost of infusing the drug, required repeat imaging, and medical management.

The AAN estimates annual costs of prescribing aducanumab may top $100,000 per year. With Medicare generally covering 80%, patients and families must be told that the full costs of treatment may not be covered.

“Regarding cost, we probably don’t think often enough about what prescribing a drug means for an individual patient’s finances and for the health system,” said Dr. Chiong. “In particular, when patients are in Medicare we might assume their health care costs will be sufficiently covered, but because aducanumab is so expensive its use is likely to impose very significant costs on individual patients as well as to the Medicare program,” Dr. Chiong said.

“It is understandable why a new drug for Alzheimer’s disease generates so much interest, because while its approval has been controversial, it still offers a glimmer of hope to patients and their families,” AAN President Orly Avitzur, MD, said in a news release. “By using ethical principles to create this position statement, the American Academy of Neurology aims to help neurologists and other physicians transparently counsel patients and their families with a goal of providing the highest quality patient-centered care,” Dr. Avitzur said.

This statement was approved by the Ethics, Law, and Humanities Committee, a joint committee of the AAN, American Neurological Association, and Child Neurology Society.

This research had no targeted funding. Dr. Chiong has received personal compensation for serving on the Neuroethics Working Group of the National Institutes of Health BRAIN Initiative, and his institution has received research support from the National Institutes of Health. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

A newly released position statement from the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) provides guidance to neurologists about counseling  patients with Alzheimer’s disease and their families about the controversial drug aducanumab (Aduhelm).

The statement includes ethical considerations and recommendations for informed consent, and the AAN notes that neurologists should ensure that patients understand all of the issues and uncertainties surrounding the use of aducanumab.

“Neurologists and other clinicians want to provide the best care to patients and families, particularly for a disease that is as challenging as Alzheimer’s. We hope that this statement can be a guide for clinicians in communicating with patients and families in order to carefully consider decisions about the use of aducanumab,” said lead author Winston Chiong, MD, PhD, University of California San Francisco Memory and Aging Center, and a member of the AAN’s Ethics, Law, and Humanities Committee.

The statement was published online Nov. 17 in Neurology.
 

Open, honest communication

The Food and Drug Administration approved the antiamyloid agent aducanumab based on two studies that were both stopped prematurely for futility. In subsequent post hoc analyses of the available data, one of those studies indicated a statistically significant, albeit small, benefit with high-dose aducanumab, while the other study continued to show no benefit.

The clinical importance of the small statistical benefit in the single trial for daily function is unclear, and aducanumab was also associated with brain inflammation and brain bleeds in more than one-third of patients who received the FDA-approved dose, which requires regular brain MRI monitoring.

All of this should be communicated to patients, the AAN advises.

Patients should know that while aducanumab reduces beta-amyloid plaques in the brain that are markers of Alzheimer’s disease, it remains unclear whether this provides any meaningful benefit.

The AAN adds that it is equally important to tell patients and families that aducanumab does not restore cognitive function and that there is insufficient data to offer it to people with moderate or advanced dementia or to those without evidence of beta-amyloid plaques.

It’s important to note that very few participants in the aducanumab trials were Hispanic, Black, or Indigenous. 

“Informed consent conversations with patients of populations underrepresented in clinical trials should include disclosure about the absence of safety and efficacy data in these groups,” the authors noted.
 

‘New territory’ for neurologists

“There are two aspects of aducanumab that are relatively new territory for us as neurologists,” Dr. Chiong said. One is the controversy about the evidence for the drug. “In the statement, we’ve tried to help clinicians communicate the uncertainty over aducanumab’s risks and potential benefits,” Dr. Chiong said. The other is the high cost of the drug and how it will be covered.

Aducanumab has a price tag of $56,000 per year, which does not include the cost of infusing the drug, required repeat imaging, and medical management.

The AAN estimates annual costs of prescribing aducanumab may top $100,000 per year. With Medicare generally covering 80%, patients and families must be told that the full costs of treatment may not be covered.

“Regarding cost, we probably don’t think often enough about what prescribing a drug means for an individual patient’s finances and for the health system,” said Dr. Chiong. “In particular, when patients are in Medicare we might assume their health care costs will be sufficiently covered, but because aducanumab is so expensive its use is likely to impose very significant costs on individual patients as well as to the Medicare program,” Dr. Chiong said.

“It is understandable why a new drug for Alzheimer’s disease generates so much interest, because while its approval has been controversial, it still offers a glimmer of hope to patients and their families,” AAN President Orly Avitzur, MD, said in a news release. “By using ethical principles to create this position statement, the American Academy of Neurology aims to help neurologists and other physicians transparently counsel patients and their families with a goal of providing the highest quality patient-centered care,” Dr. Avitzur said.

This statement was approved by the Ethics, Law, and Humanities Committee, a joint committee of the AAN, American Neurological Association, and Child Neurology Society.

This research had no targeted funding. Dr. Chiong has received personal compensation for serving on the Neuroethics Working Group of the National Institutes of Health BRAIN Initiative, and his institution has received research support from the National Institutes of Health. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

Adding lithium to usual care does not decrease the risk of suicide-related events in those with major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar disorder (BD) who have survived a recent suicidal event, new research shows.

The results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in veterans showed no apparent advantage of the drug in preventing self-injury, suicide attempts, or urgent hospitalization to prevent suicide.

“Lithium is an important therapy for bipolar disorders and depression subsets. Our study indicates that, in patients who are actively followed and treated in a system of care that the VA provides, simply adding lithium to their existing management, including medications, is unlikely to be effective for preventing a broad range of suicide-related events,” study investigator Ryan Ferguson, MPH, ScD, Boston Cooperative Studies Coordinating Center, VA Boston Healthcare System, told this news organization.

The study was published online JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Surprising findings

The results were somewhat surprising, Dr. Ferguson added. “Lithium showed little or no effect in our study, compared to observational data and results from previous trials. Many clinicians and practice guidelines had assumed that lithium was an effective agent in preventing suicide,” he said.

However, the authors of an accompanying editorial urge caution in concluding that lithium has no antisuicidal effects.

This “rigorously designed and conducted trial has much to teach but cannot be taken as evidence that lithium treatment is ineffective regarding suicidal risk,” write Ross Baldessarini, MD, and Leonardo Tondo, MD, department of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Study participants were veterans with MDD or BD receiving care at one of 29 Veterans Administration medical centers who survived a recent suicide-related event. In addition to usual care, they were randomly assigned to receive oral extended-release lithium carbonate starting at 600 mg/day or matching placebo for 52 weeks.

The primary outcome was time to the first repeated suicide-related event, including suicide attempts, interrupted attempts, hospitalizations specifically to prevent suicide, and deaths from suicide.

The trial was stopped for futility after 519 veterans (mean age, 42.8 years; 84% male) were randomly assigned to receive lithium (n = 255) or placebo (n = 264). At 3 months, mean lithium concentrations were 0.54 mEq/L for patients with BD and 0.46 mEq/L for those with MDD.

There was no significant difference in the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.55; P = .61).

A total of 127 participants (24.5%) had suicide-related outcomes – 65 in the lithium group and 62 in the placebo group. One death occurred in the lithium group and three in the placebo group. There were no unanticipated drug-related safety concerns.
 

Caveats, cautionary notes

The researchers note that the study did not reach its original recruitment goal. “One of the barriers to recruitment was the perception of many of the clinicians caring for potential participants that the effectiveness of lithium was already established; in fact, this perception was supported by the VA/U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline,” they point out.

They also note that most veterans in the study had depression rather than BD, which is the most common indication for lithium use. Most also had substance use disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, or both, which could influence outcomes.

As a result of small numbers, it wasn’t possible to evaluate outcomes for patients with BD, test whether outcomes differed among patients with BD and MDD, or assess whether comorbidities attenuated the effects of lithium.

The study’s protocol increased participants’ contacts with the VA, which also may have affected outcomes, the researchers note.

In addition, high rates of attrition and low rates of substantial adherence to lithium meant only about half (48.1%) of the study population achieved target serum lithium concentrations.

Editorial writers Dr. Baldessarini and Dr. Tondo note that the low circulating concentrations of lithium and the fact that adherence to assigned treatment was considered adequate in only 17% of participants are key limitations of the study.

“In general, controlled treatment trials aimed at detecting suicide preventive effects are difficult to design, perform, and interpret,” they point out.

Evidence supporting an antisuicidal effect of lithium treatment includes nearly three dozen observational trials that have shown fewer suicides or attempts with lithium treatment, as well as “marked, temporary” increases in suicidal behavior soon after stopping lithium treatment.

Dr. Baldessarini and Dr. Tondo note the current findings “cannot be taken as evidence that lithium lacks antisuicidal effects. An ironic final note is that recruiting participants to such trials may be made difficult by an evidently prevalent belief that the question of antisuicidal effects of lithium is already settled, which it certainly is not,” they write.

Dr. Ferguson “agrees that more work needs to be done to understand the antisuicidal effect of lithium.

The study received financial and material support from a grant from the Cooperative Studies Program, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Ferguson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

Dr. Baldessarini and Dr. Tondo have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Their editorial was supported by grants from the Bruce J. Anderson Foundation, the McLean Private Donors Fund for Psychiatric Research, and the Aretaeus Foundation of Rome.

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

Adding lithium to usual care does not decrease the risk of suicide-related events in those with major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar disorder (BD) who have survived a recent suicidal event, new research shows.

The results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in veterans showed no apparent advantage of the drug in preventing self-injury, suicide attempts, or urgent hospitalization to prevent suicide.

“Lithium is an important therapy for bipolar disorders and depression subsets. Our study indicates that, in patients who are actively followed and treated in a system of care that the VA provides, simply adding lithium to their existing management, including medications, is unlikely to be effective for preventing a broad range of suicide-related events,” study investigator Ryan Ferguson, MPH, ScD, Boston Cooperative Studies Coordinating Center, VA Boston Healthcare System, told this news organization.

The study was published online JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Surprising findings

The results were somewhat surprising, Dr. Ferguson added. “Lithium showed little or no effect in our study, compared to observational data and results from previous trials. Many clinicians and practice guidelines had assumed that lithium was an effective agent in preventing suicide,” he said.

However, the authors of an accompanying editorial urge caution in concluding that lithium has no antisuicidal effects.

This “rigorously designed and conducted trial has much to teach but cannot be taken as evidence that lithium treatment is ineffective regarding suicidal risk,” write Ross Baldessarini, MD, and Leonardo Tondo, MD, department of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Study participants were veterans with MDD or BD receiving care at one of 29 Veterans Administration medical centers who survived a recent suicide-related event. In addition to usual care, they were randomly assigned to receive oral extended-release lithium carbonate starting at 600 mg/day or matching placebo for 52 weeks.

The primary outcome was time to the first repeated suicide-related event, including suicide attempts, interrupted attempts, hospitalizations specifically to prevent suicide, and deaths from suicide.

The trial was stopped for futility after 519 veterans (mean age, 42.8 years; 84% male) were randomly assigned to receive lithium (n = 255) or placebo (n = 264). At 3 months, mean lithium concentrations were 0.54 mEq/L for patients with BD and 0.46 mEq/L for those with MDD.

There was no significant difference in the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.55; P = .61).

A total of 127 participants (24.5%) had suicide-related outcomes – 65 in the lithium group and 62 in the placebo group. One death occurred in the lithium group and three in the placebo group. There were no unanticipated drug-related safety concerns.
 

Caveats, cautionary notes

The researchers note that the study did not reach its original recruitment goal. “One of the barriers to recruitment was the perception of many of the clinicians caring for potential participants that the effectiveness of lithium was already established; in fact, this perception was supported by the VA/U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline,” they point out.

They also note that most veterans in the study had depression rather than BD, which is the most common indication for lithium use. Most also had substance use disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, or both, which could influence outcomes.

As a result of small numbers, it wasn’t possible to evaluate outcomes for patients with BD, test whether outcomes differed among patients with BD and MDD, or assess whether comorbidities attenuated the effects of lithium.

The study’s protocol increased participants’ contacts with the VA, which also may have affected outcomes, the researchers note.

In addition, high rates of attrition and low rates of substantial adherence to lithium meant only about half (48.1%) of the study population achieved target serum lithium concentrations.

Editorial writers Dr. Baldessarini and Dr. Tondo note that the low circulating concentrations of lithium and the fact that adherence to assigned treatment was considered adequate in only 17% of participants are key limitations of the study.

“In general, controlled treatment trials aimed at detecting suicide preventive effects are difficult to design, perform, and interpret,” they point out.

Evidence supporting an antisuicidal effect of lithium treatment includes nearly three dozen observational trials that have shown fewer suicides or attempts with lithium treatment, as well as “marked, temporary” increases in suicidal behavior soon after stopping lithium treatment.

Dr. Baldessarini and Dr. Tondo note the current findings “cannot be taken as evidence that lithium lacks antisuicidal effects. An ironic final note is that recruiting participants to such trials may be made difficult by an evidently prevalent belief that the question of antisuicidal effects of lithium is already settled, which it certainly is not,” they write.

Dr. Ferguson “agrees that more work needs to be done to understand the antisuicidal effect of lithium.

The study received financial and material support from a grant from the Cooperative Studies Program, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Ferguson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

Dr. Baldessarini and Dr. Tondo have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Their editorial was supported by grants from the Bruce J. Anderson Foundation, the McLean Private Donors Fund for Psychiatric Research, and the Aretaeus Foundation of Rome.

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

Adding lithium to usual care does not decrease the risk of suicide-related events in those with major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar disorder (BD) who have survived a recent suicidal event, new research shows.

The results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in veterans showed no apparent advantage of the drug in preventing self-injury, suicide attempts, or urgent hospitalization to prevent suicide.

“Lithium is an important therapy for bipolar disorders and depression subsets. Our study indicates that, in patients who are actively followed and treated in a system of care that the VA provides, simply adding lithium to their existing management, including medications, is unlikely to be effective for preventing a broad range of suicide-related events,” study investigator Ryan Ferguson, MPH, ScD, Boston Cooperative Studies Coordinating Center, VA Boston Healthcare System, told this news organization.

The study was published online JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Surprising findings

The results were somewhat surprising, Dr. Ferguson added. “Lithium showed little or no effect in our study, compared to observational data and results from previous trials. Many clinicians and practice guidelines had assumed that lithium was an effective agent in preventing suicide,” he said.

However, the authors of an accompanying editorial urge caution in concluding that lithium has no antisuicidal effects.

This “rigorously designed and conducted trial has much to teach but cannot be taken as evidence that lithium treatment is ineffective regarding suicidal risk,” write Ross Baldessarini, MD, and Leonardo Tondo, MD, department of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Study participants were veterans with MDD or BD receiving care at one of 29 Veterans Administration medical centers who survived a recent suicide-related event. In addition to usual care, they were randomly assigned to receive oral extended-release lithium carbonate starting at 600 mg/day or matching placebo for 52 weeks.

The primary outcome was time to the first repeated suicide-related event, including suicide attempts, interrupted attempts, hospitalizations specifically to prevent suicide, and deaths from suicide.

The trial was stopped for futility after 519 veterans (mean age, 42.8 years; 84% male) were randomly assigned to receive lithium (n = 255) or placebo (n = 264). At 3 months, mean lithium concentrations were 0.54 mEq/L for patients with BD and 0.46 mEq/L for those with MDD.

There was no significant difference in the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.55; P = .61).

A total of 127 participants (24.5%) had suicide-related outcomes – 65 in the lithium group and 62 in the placebo group. One death occurred in the lithium group and three in the placebo group. There were no unanticipated drug-related safety concerns.
 

Caveats, cautionary notes

The researchers note that the study did not reach its original recruitment goal. “One of the barriers to recruitment was the perception of many of the clinicians caring for potential participants that the effectiveness of lithium was already established; in fact, this perception was supported by the VA/U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline,” they point out.

They also note that most veterans in the study had depression rather than BD, which is the most common indication for lithium use. Most also had substance use disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, or both, which could influence outcomes.

As a result of small numbers, it wasn’t possible to evaluate outcomes for patients with BD, test whether outcomes differed among patients with BD and MDD, or assess whether comorbidities attenuated the effects of lithium.

The study’s protocol increased participants’ contacts with the VA, which also may have affected outcomes, the researchers note.

In addition, high rates of attrition and low rates of substantial adherence to lithium meant only about half (48.1%) of the study population achieved target serum lithium concentrations.

Editorial writers Dr. Baldessarini and Dr. Tondo note that the low circulating concentrations of lithium and the fact that adherence to assigned treatment was considered adequate in only 17% of participants are key limitations of the study.

“In general, controlled treatment trials aimed at detecting suicide preventive effects are difficult to design, perform, and interpret,” they point out.

Evidence supporting an antisuicidal effect of lithium treatment includes nearly three dozen observational trials that have shown fewer suicides or attempts with lithium treatment, as well as “marked, temporary” increases in suicidal behavior soon after stopping lithium treatment.

Dr. Baldessarini and Dr. Tondo note the current findings “cannot be taken as evidence that lithium lacks antisuicidal effects. An ironic final note is that recruiting participants to such trials may be made difficult by an evidently prevalent belief that the question of antisuicidal effects of lithium is already settled, which it certainly is not,” they write.

Dr. Ferguson “agrees that more work needs to be done to understand the antisuicidal effect of lithium.

The study received financial and material support from a grant from the Cooperative Studies Program, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Ferguson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

Dr. Baldessarini and Dr. Tondo have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Their editorial was supported by grants from the Bruce J. Anderson Foundation, the McLean Private Donors Fund for Psychiatric Research, and the Aretaeus Foundation of Rome.

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