User login
FDA’s fast-track approval process exposed as lax, in need of reform
an in-depth investigation published in The BMJ has determined.
“Despite the pathway’s good intentions to accelerate ‘the availability of drugs that treat serious diseases,’ experts are concerned that it is now being exploited – to the detriment of patients, who may be prescribed a drug that offers little benefit and possible harm, and to taxpayers,” writes Elisabeth Mahase, clinical reporter at The BMJ, who carried out the analysis.
The FDA’s accelerated approval pathway is intended to provide earlier access to drugs for serious diseases when there is lingering uncertainty at the time of approval regarding the drug’s ultimate clinical benefit.
Required studies rarely completed
As part of this fast-track pathway, drug manufacturers must conduct postapproval, phase 4 confirmatory trials to verify the anticipated clinical benefit. If these trials indicate no benefit, FDA approval can be withdrawn.
However, the analysis of FDA data shows once they are approved drugs are rarely taken off the market.
The BMJ investigation that analyzed data up to the end of 2020 shows that 112 of the 253 (44%) medications granted accelerated approval have not been confirmed to be effective.
In addition, 24 (21%) of these questionable drugs have been on the market for more than 5 years and some have been on the market for more than 20 years – often with a hefty price tag.
Furthermore, only 16 drugs approved through the accelerated approval process have ever been withdrawn, and most were shown to be ineffective, but in some cases the confirmatory trials were never done, Ms. Mahase reports.
For example, the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib (Celebrex), which was granted accelerated approval in 1999 for the treatment of familial adenomatous polyposis, was on the market for 12 years before the FDA finally asked Pfizer to voluntarily withdraw it for this indication because efficacy trials were never completed.
As part of The BMJ’s investigation, Ms. Mahase asked manufacturers of the 24 drugs that have remained on the market for more than 5 years whether they had conducted the required phase 4 confirmatory trials. Six of the drugs had been withdrawn, approved, or postponed.
Of the remaining 18 drugs, the manufacturers provided the relevant trial information for only six. Only four drugmakers had started to recruit patients; two said they were still in discussion with the FDA over the final trial design.
“These products routinely have side effects, but the benefit information is a lot less certain. That’s what we’re concerned about – that we may have drugs on the market that don’t have any benefits, but certainly predictably have harms associated with them,” Huseyin Naci, PhD, MHS, with the London School of Economics, comments in the report.
Call for reform
As reported by this news organization, a 2015 report by the General Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that the FDA does not do an effective job of tracking the clinical efficacy or the safety of drugs with expedited approval after they hit the market.
In April of this year, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) cited a lack of “credible threats” to withdraw approval if companies don’t do confirmatory trials – meaning drugmakers have little incentive to do the trials.
“There are some instances where the companies really do seem to be taking advantage of the accelerated approval pathway and are using it in a way that makes it harder to get at the truth about whether these products really are safe and effective,” Rachel Sachs, JD, MPH, Washington University, St. Louis, said in The BMJ article.
In addition, the authors of a recent viewpoint article in JAMA Internal Medicine assert the recent approval of the controversial anti-amyloid drug aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen) shows that the accelerated approval pathway needs to be reformed.
Despite the concerns, Ms. Mahase said all experts who spoke to The BMJ believe the accelerated approval pathway is still useful and can be beneficial to patients, although some changes are needed.
One effective reform might be to have confirmatory trials designed, and even started, as part of accelerated approval.
“One important piece of the puzzle is for the FDA itself to be tougher on these companies, to hold them to the bargain that they have agreed to, and to take action when the company has not met their obligations,” Ms. Sachs told the journal.
An FDA spokesperson told the BMJ that the agency is “committed to working with sponsors to ensure that confirmatory studies are completed in a timely manner.”
“We expect sponsors to commit all resources needed to move trials forward as effectively as possible, with the aim of completing trials as soon as is feasible, while assuring the quality of the data and the robustness of the results,” the agency said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
an in-depth investigation published in The BMJ has determined.
“Despite the pathway’s good intentions to accelerate ‘the availability of drugs that treat serious diseases,’ experts are concerned that it is now being exploited – to the detriment of patients, who may be prescribed a drug that offers little benefit and possible harm, and to taxpayers,” writes Elisabeth Mahase, clinical reporter at The BMJ, who carried out the analysis.
The FDA’s accelerated approval pathway is intended to provide earlier access to drugs for serious diseases when there is lingering uncertainty at the time of approval regarding the drug’s ultimate clinical benefit.
Required studies rarely completed
As part of this fast-track pathway, drug manufacturers must conduct postapproval, phase 4 confirmatory trials to verify the anticipated clinical benefit. If these trials indicate no benefit, FDA approval can be withdrawn.
However, the analysis of FDA data shows once they are approved drugs are rarely taken off the market.
The BMJ investigation that analyzed data up to the end of 2020 shows that 112 of the 253 (44%) medications granted accelerated approval have not been confirmed to be effective.
In addition, 24 (21%) of these questionable drugs have been on the market for more than 5 years and some have been on the market for more than 20 years – often with a hefty price tag.
Furthermore, only 16 drugs approved through the accelerated approval process have ever been withdrawn, and most were shown to be ineffective, but in some cases the confirmatory trials were never done, Ms. Mahase reports.
For example, the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib (Celebrex), which was granted accelerated approval in 1999 for the treatment of familial adenomatous polyposis, was on the market for 12 years before the FDA finally asked Pfizer to voluntarily withdraw it for this indication because efficacy trials were never completed.
As part of The BMJ’s investigation, Ms. Mahase asked manufacturers of the 24 drugs that have remained on the market for more than 5 years whether they had conducted the required phase 4 confirmatory trials. Six of the drugs had been withdrawn, approved, or postponed.
Of the remaining 18 drugs, the manufacturers provided the relevant trial information for only six. Only four drugmakers had started to recruit patients; two said they were still in discussion with the FDA over the final trial design.
“These products routinely have side effects, but the benefit information is a lot less certain. That’s what we’re concerned about – that we may have drugs on the market that don’t have any benefits, but certainly predictably have harms associated with them,” Huseyin Naci, PhD, MHS, with the London School of Economics, comments in the report.
Call for reform
As reported by this news organization, a 2015 report by the General Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that the FDA does not do an effective job of tracking the clinical efficacy or the safety of drugs with expedited approval after they hit the market.
In April of this year, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) cited a lack of “credible threats” to withdraw approval if companies don’t do confirmatory trials – meaning drugmakers have little incentive to do the trials.
“There are some instances where the companies really do seem to be taking advantage of the accelerated approval pathway and are using it in a way that makes it harder to get at the truth about whether these products really are safe and effective,” Rachel Sachs, JD, MPH, Washington University, St. Louis, said in The BMJ article.
In addition, the authors of a recent viewpoint article in JAMA Internal Medicine assert the recent approval of the controversial anti-amyloid drug aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen) shows that the accelerated approval pathway needs to be reformed.
Despite the concerns, Ms. Mahase said all experts who spoke to The BMJ believe the accelerated approval pathway is still useful and can be beneficial to patients, although some changes are needed.
One effective reform might be to have confirmatory trials designed, and even started, as part of accelerated approval.
“One important piece of the puzzle is for the FDA itself to be tougher on these companies, to hold them to the bargain that they have agreed to, and to take action when the company has not met their obligations,” Ms. Sachs told the journal.
An FDA spokesperson told the BMJ that the agency is “committed to working with sponsors to ensure that confirmatory studies are completed in a timely manner.”
“We expect sponsors to commit all resources needed to move trials forward as effectively as possible, with the aim of completing trials as soon as is feasible, while assuring the quality of the data and the robustness of the results,” the agency said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
an in-depth investigation published in The BMJ has determined.
“Despite the pathway’s good intentions to accelerate ‘the availability of drugs that treat serious diseases,’ experts are concerned that it is now being exploited – to the detriment of patients, who may be prescribed a drug that offers little benefit and possible harm, and to taxpayers,” writes Elisabeth Mahase, clinical reporter at The BMJ, who carried out the analysis.
The FDA’s accelerated approval pathway is intended to provide earlier access to drugs for serious diseases when there is lingering uncertainty at the time of approval regarding the drug’s ultimate clinical benefit.
Required studies rarely completed
As part of this fast-track pathway, drug manufacturers must conduct postapproval, phase 4 confirmatory trials to verify the anticipated clinical benefit. If these trials indicate no benefit, FDA approval can be withdrawn.
However, the analysis of FDA data shows once they are approved drugs are rarely taken off the market.
The BMJ investigation that analyzed data up to the end of 2020 shows that 112 of the 253 (44%) medications granted accelerated approval have not been confirmed to be effective.
In addition, 24 (21%) of these questionable drugs have been on the market for more than 5 years and some have been on the market for more than 20 years – often with a hefty price tag.
Furthermore, only 16 drugs approved through the accelerated approval process have ever been withdrawn, and most were shown to be ineffective, but in some cases the confirmatory trials were never done, Ms. Mahase reports.
For example, the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib (Celebrex), which was granted accelerated approval in 1999 for the treatment of familial adenomatous polyposis, was on the market for 12 years before the FDA finally asked Pfizer to voluntarily withdraw it for this indication because efficacy trials were never completed.
As part of The BMJ’s investigation, Ms. Mahase asked manufacturers of the 24 drugs that have remained on the market for more than 5 years whether they had conducted the required phase 4 confirmatory trials. Six of the drugs had been withdrawn, approved, or postponed.
Of the remaining 18 drugs, the manufacturers provided the relevant trial information for only six. Only four drugmakers had started to recruit patients; two said they were still in discussion with the FDA over the final trial design.
“These products routinely have side effects, but the benefit information is a lot less certain. That’s what we’re concerned about – that we may have drugs on the market that don’t have any benefits, but certainly predictably have harms associated with them,” Huseyin Naci, PhD, MHS, with the London School of Economics, comments in the report.
Call for reform
As reported by this news organization, a 2015 report by the General Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that the FDA does not do an effective job of tracking the clinical efficacy or the safety of drugs with expedited approval after they hit the market.
In April of this year, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) cited a lack of “credible threats” to withdraw approval if companies don’t do confirmatory trials – meaning drugmakers have little incentive to do the trials.
“There are some instances where the companies really do seem to be taking advantage of the accelerated approval pathway and are using it in a way that makes it harder to get at the truth about whether these products really are safe and effective,” Rachel Sachs, JD, MPH, Washington University, St. Louis, said in The BMJ article.
In addition, the authors of a recent viewpoint article in JAMA Internal Medicine assert the recent approval of the controversial anti-amyloid drug aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen) shows that the accelerated approval pathway needs to be reformed.
Despite the concerns, Ms. Mahase said all experts who spoke to The BMJ believe the accelerated approval pathway is still useful and can be beneficial to patients, although some changes are needed.
One effective reform might be to have confirmatory trials designed, and even started, as part of accelerated approval.
“One important piece of the puzzle is for the FDA itself to be tougher on these companies, to hold them to the bargain that they have agreed to, and to take action when the company has not met their obligations,” Ms. Sachs told the journal.
An FDA spokesperson told the BMJ that the agency is “committed to working with sponsors to ensure that confirmatory studies are completed in a timely manner.”
“We expect sponsors to commit all resources needed to move trials forward as effectively as possible, with the aim of completing trials as soon as is feasible, while assuring the quality of the data and the robustness of the results,” the agency said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Prevalence of dementia before age 65 much higher than expected
Results of a large meta-analysis show that currently 3.9 million individuals are living with young-onset dementia. Among these patients, symptoms of the disease start before age 65.
Recent global young-onset dementia estimates have ranged from 42.3 to 54.0 per 100,000 population, the researchers noted. However, the new study, which included 74 global studies with 2.7 million participants, shows that the global age-standardized prevalence of young-onset dementia is 119.00 per 100,000 among individuals aged 30-64 years; there was little difference in prevalence between men and women. On the basis of the latest population estimates, these new prevalence data imply that there are approximately 175,000 persons with young-onset dementia in the United States.
Although the new global estimate of young-onset dementia is higher than previously thought, “it is still probably an underestimation owing to lack of high-quality data. This should raise awareness for policy makers and health care professionals to organize more and better care for this subgroup of individuals with dementia,” wrote the investigators, with first author Stevie Hendriks, MSc, Maastricht (the Netherlands) University, and the Young-Onset Dementia Epidemiology Study Group.
The study was published online July 19, 2021, in JAMA Neurology.
‘Essential’ data
Young-onset dementia is exceedingly rare in those aged 30-63 years (1.1 per 100,000) but is more prevalent at age 60-64 years (77.4 per 100,000). “Our findings fit the general observation that prevalence of dementia increases exponentially from 60 years of age onward,” they wrote.
The prevalence of young-onset dementia was similar in men and women, lower in the United States than in Europe, highest in upper- to middle-income countries, and highest for Alzheimer’s disease, followed by vascular dementia and frontotemporal dementia.
Monitoring the prevalence of young-onset dementia is “essential” to adequately plan and organize health services, the investigators noted.
To ensure more accurate prevalence estimates in the future, “efforts should be made to conduct more cohort studies and to standardize procedures and reporting of prevalence studies. In addition, more data are needed from low-income countries as well as studies that include younger age ranges,” they said.
New insights
In an accompanying editorial, David S. Knopman, MD, department of neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that the study provides new insights into an “underappreciated problem.”.
Young-onset dementia is a “particularly disheartening diagnosis because it affects individuals in their prime years, in the midst of their careers, and while raising families,” Dr. Knopman wrote.
“Most dementia care is geared for older patients, and as a consequence, services are rarely available to address the needs of someone diagnosed with dementia in their 50s who has dependent children at home and a spouse who must continue working. Understanding the prevalence and incidence of young-onset dementia is a first step in addressing this challenge,” Dr. Knopman wrote.
He noted that the authors of this analysis have “done a service to the dementia community by collecting and analyzing the dozens of individual studies of young-onset dementia.
“The product, a rationally derived estimate of dementia prevalence across the population aged 30-64 years, provides a basis for initiating more efforts to improve methods for timely diagnosis and to address the unique needs of patients with young-onset dementia,” Dr. Knopman concluded.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Results of a large meta-analysis show that currently 3.9 million individuals are living with young-onset dementia. Among these patients, symptoms of the disease start before age 65.
Recent global young-onset dementia estimates have ranged from 42.3 to 54.0 per 100,000 population, the researchers noted. However, the new study, which included 74 global studies with 2.7 million participants, shows that the global age-standardized prevalence of young-onset dementia is 119.00 per 100,000 among individuals aged 30-64 years; there was little difference in prevalence between men and women. On the basis of the latest population estimates, these new prevalence data imply that there are approximately 175,000 persons with young-onset dementia in the United States.
Although the new global estimate of young-onset dementia is higher than previously thought, “it is still probably an underestimation owing to lack of high-quality data. This should raise awareness for policy makers and health care professionals to organize more and better care for this subgroup of individuals with dementia,” wrote the investigators, with first author Stevie Hendriks, MSc, Maastricht (the Netherlands) University, and the Young-Onset Dementia Epidemiology Study Group.
The study was published online July 19, 2021, in JAMA Neurology.
‘Essential’ data
Young-onset dementia is exceedingly rare in those aged 30-63 years (1.1 per 100,000) but is more prevalent at age 60-64 years (77.4 per 100,000). “Our findings fit the general observation that prevalence of dementia increases exponentially from 60 years of age onward,” they wrote.
The prevalence of young-onset dementia was similar in men and women, lower in the United States than in Europe, highest in upper- to middle-income countries, and highest for Alzheimer’s disease, followed by vascular dementia and frontotemporal dementia.
Monitoring the prevalence of young-onset dementia is “essential” to adequately plan and organize health services, the investigators noted.
To ensure more accurate prevalence estimates in the future, “efforts should be made to conduct more cohort studies and to standardize procedures and reporting of prevalence studies. In addition, more data are needed from low-income countries as well as studies that include younger age ranges,” they said.
New insights
In an accompanying editorial, David S. Knopman, MD, department of neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that the study provides new insights into an “underappreciated problem.”.
Young-onset dementia is a “particularly disheartening diagnosis because it affects individuals in their prime years, in the midst of their careers, and while raising families,” Dr. Knopman wrote.
“Most dementia care is geared for older patients, and as a consequence, services are rarely available to address the needs of someone diagnosed with dementia in their 50s who has dependent children at home and a spouse who must continue working. Understanding the prevalence and incidence of young-onset dementia is a first step in addressing this challenge,” Dr. Knopman wrote.
He noted that the authors of this analysis have “done a service to the dementia community by collecting and analyzing the dozens of individual studies of young-onset dementia.
“The product, a rationally derived estimate of dementia prevalence across the population aged 30-64 years, provides a basis for initiating more efforts to improve methods for timely diagnosis and to address the unique needs of patients with young-onset dementia,” Dr. Knopman concluded.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Results of a large meta-analysis show that currently 3.9 million individuals are living with young-onset dementia. Among these patients, symptoms of the disease start before age 65.
Recent global young-onset dementia estimates have ranged from 42.3 to 54.0 per 100,000 population, the researchers noted. However, the new study, which included 74 global studies with 2.7 million participants, shows that the global age-standardized prevalence of young-onset dementia is 119.00 per 100,000 among individuals aged 30-64 years; there was little difference in prevalence between men and women. On the basis of the latest population estimates, these new prevalence data imply that there are approximately 175,000 persons with young-onset dementia in the United States.
Although the new global estimate of young-onset dementia is higher than previously thought, “it is still probably an underestimation owing to lack of high-quality data. This should raise awareness for policy makers and health care professionals to organize more and better care for this subgroup of individuals with dementia,” wrote the investigators, with first author Stevie Hendriks, MSc, Maastricht (the Netherlands) University, and the Young-Onset Dementia Epidemiology Study Group.
The study was published online July 19, 2021, in JAMA Neurology.
‘Essential’ data
Young-onset dementia is exceedingly rare in those aged 30-63 years (1.1 per 100,000) but is more prevalent at age 60-64 years (77.4 per 100,000). “Our findings fit the general observation that prevalence of dementia increases exponentially from 60 years of age onward,” they wrote.
The prevalence of young-onset dementia was similar in men and women, lower in the United States than in Europe, highest in upper- to middle-income countries, and highest for Alzheimer’s disease, followed by vascular dementia and frontotemporal dementia.
Monitoring the prevalence of young-onset dementia is “essential” to adequately plan and organize health services, the investigators noted.
To ensure more accurate prevalence estimates in the future, “efforts should be made to conduct more cohort studies and to standardize procedures and reporting of prevalence studies. In addition, more data are needed from low-income countries as well as studies that include younger age ranges,” they said.
New insights
In an accompanying editorial, David S. Knopman, MD, department of neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that the study provides new insights into an “underappreciated problem.”.
Young-onset dementia is a “particularly disheartening diagnosis because it affects individuals in their prime years, in the midst of their careers, and while raising families,” Dr. Knopman wrote.
“Most dementia care is geared for older patients, and as a consequence, services are rarely available to address the needs of someone diagnosed with dementia in their 50s who has dependent children at home and a spouse who must continue working. Understanding the prevalence and incidence of young-onset dementia is a first step in addressing this challenge,” Dr. Knopman wrote.
He noted that the authors of this analysis have “done a service to the dementia community by collecting and analyzing the dozens of individual studies of young-onset dementia.
“The product, a rationally derived estimate of dementia prevalence across the population aged 30-64 years, provides a basis for initiating more efforts to improve methods for timely diagnosis and to address the unique needs of patients with young-onset dementia,” Dr. Knopman concluded.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NEUROLOGY
‘Staggering’ increase in global dementia cases predicted by 2050
, new global prevalence data show. “These extreme increases are due largely to demographic trends, including population growth and aging,” said study investigator Emma Nichols, MPH, a researcher at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington in Seattle.
“Our estimates of expected increases can and should inform policy and planning efforts that will be needed to address the needs of the growing number of individuals with dementia in the future,” Ms. Nichols said.
The latest global prevalence data were reported at the 2021 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
“The numbers are staggering: Nearly 153 million cases of dementia are predicted worldwide by the year 2050. To put that in context, that number is equal to approximately half of the U.S. population in 2020,” Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said in a statement.
Prevalence by country
To more accurately forecast global dementia prevalence and produce country-level estimates, the investigators leveraged data from 1999 to 2019 from the Global Burden of Disease study, a comprehensive set of estimates of worldwide health trends.
These data suggest global dementia cases will increase from 57.4 million (50.4 to 65.1) in 2019 to 152.8 million (130.8 to 175.9) in 2050.
Regions that will experience the worst of the increase are eastern Sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, and the Middle East.
The researchers also factored into the forecasts expected trends in obesity, diabetes, smoking, and educational attainment.
Increases in better education around the world are projected to decrease dementia prevalence by 6.2 million cases worldwide by 2050. However, anticipated trends in smoking, high body mass index, and diabetes will offset this gain, increasing global dementia cases by 6.8 million cases.
“A reversal of these expected trends in cardiovascular risks would be necessary to alter the anticipated trends,” Ms. Nichols said. “Interventions targeted at modifiable risk factors for dementia represent a viable strategy to help address the anticipated trends in dementia burden,” she added.
Need for effective prevention, treatment
Commenting on the research, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the global increase in dementia cases is something the association has been following for many years. “We know that if we do not find effective treatments that are going to stop, slow, or prevent Alzheimer’s disease, this number will continue to grow and it will continue to impact people globally,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
She noted that although there are some positive trends, including the fact that increased education may drive down dementia risk, other factors, such as smoking, high body mass index, and high blood sugar level, are predicted to increase in prevalence.
“Some of these factors are actually counterbalancing each other, and in the end, if we don’t continue to develop culturally tailored interventions or even risk reduction strategies for individuals across the globe, we will continue to see those numbers rise overall,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new global prevalence data show. “These extreme increases are due largely to demographic trends, including population growth and aging,” said study investigator Emma Nichols, MPH, a researcher at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington in Seattle.
“Our estimates of expected increases can and should inform policy and planning efforts that will be needed to address the needs of the growing number of individuals with dementia in the future,” Ms. Nichols said.
The latest global prevalence data were reported at the 2021 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
“The numbers are staggering: Nearly 153 million cases of dementia are predicted worldwide by the year 2050. To put that in context, that number is equal to approximately half of the U.S. population in 2020,” Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said in a statement.
Prevalence by country
To more accurately forecast global dementia prevalence and produce country-level estimates, the investigators leveraged data from 1999 to 2019 from the Global Burden of Disease study, a comprehensive set of estimates of worldwide health trends.
These data suggest global dementia cases will increase from 57.4 million (50.4 to 65.1) in 2019 to 152.8 million (130.8 to 175.9) in 2050.
Regions that will experience the worst of the increase are eastern Sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, and the Middle East.
The researchers also factored into the forecasts expected trends in obesity, diabetes, smoking, and educational attainment.
Increases in better education around the world are projected to decrease dementia prevalence by 6.2 million cases worldwide by 2050. However, anticipated trends in smoking, high body mass index, and diabetes will offset this gain, increasing global dementia cases by 6.8 million cases.
“A reversal of these expected trends in cardiovascular risks would be necessary to alter the anticipated trends,” Ms. Nichols said. “Interventions targeted at modifiable risk factors for dementia represent a viable strategy to help address the anticipated trends in dementia burden,” she added.
Need for effective prevention, treatment
Commenting on the research, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the global increase in dementia cases is something the association has been following for many years. “We know that if we do not find effective treatments that are going to stop, slow, or prevent Alzheimer’s disease, this number will continue to grow and it will continue to impact people globally,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
She noted that although there are some positive trends, including the fact that increased education may drive down dementia risk, other factors, such as smoking, high body mass index, and high blood sugar level, are predicted to increase in prevalence.
“Some of these factors are actually counterbalancing each other, and in the end, if we don’t continue to develop culturally tailored interventions or even risk reduction strategies for individuals across the globe, we will continue to see those numbers rise overall,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new global prevalence data show. “These extreme increases are due largely to demographic trends, including population growth and aging,” said study investigator Emma Nichols, MPH, a researcher at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington in Seattle.
“Our estimates of expected increases can and should inform policy and planning efforts that will be needed to address the needs of the growing number of individuals with dementia in the future,” Ms. Nichols said.
The latest global prevalence data were reported at the 2021 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
“The numbers are staggering: Nearly 153 million cases of dementia are predicted worldwide by the year 2050. To put that in context, that number is equal to approximately half of the U.S. population in 2020,” Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said in a statement.
Prevalence by country
To more accurately forecast global dementia prevalence and produce country-level estimates, the investigators leveraged data from 1999 to 2019 from the Global Burden of Disease study, a comprehensive set of estimates of worldwide health trends.
These data suggest global dementia cases will increase from 57.4 million (50.4 to 65.1) in 2019 to 152.8 million (130.8 to 175.9) in 2050.
Regions that will experience the worst of the increase are eastern Sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, and the Middle East.
The researchers also factored into the forecasts expected trends in obesity, diabetes, smoking, and educational attainment.
Increases in better education around the world are projected to decrease dementia prevalence by 6.2 million cases worldwide by 2050. However, anticipated trends in smoking, high body mass index, and diabetes will offset this gain, increasing global dementia cases by 6.8 million cases.
“A reversal of these expected trends in cardiovascular risks would be necessary to alter the anticipated trends,” Ms. Nichols said. “Interventions targeted at modifiable risk factors for dementia represent a viable strategy to help address the anticipated trends in dementia burden,” she added.
Need for effective prevention, treatment
Commenting on the research, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the global increase in dementia cases is something the association has been following for many years. “We know that if we do not find effective treatments that are going to stop, slow, or prevent Alzheimer’s disease, this number will continue to grow and it will continue to impact people globally,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
She noted that although there are some positive trends, including the fact that increased education may drive down dementia risk, other factors, such as smoking, high body mass index, and high blood sugar level, are predicted to increase in prevalence.
“Some of these factors are actually counterbalancing each other, and in the end, if we don’t continue to develop culturally tailored interventions or even risk reduction strategies for individuals across the globe, we will continue to see those numbers rise overall,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From AAIC 2021
First guidance on appropriate use of controversial Alzheimer’s drug
, the controversial anti-amyloid drug that was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in June for adults with early Alzheimer’s disease.
“There are incredible gaps between the FDA label and what most of us in the field feel needs to happen in terms of detailed guidance on using this drug,” said panel member Alireza Atri, MD, PhD, director of the Banner Sun Health Research Institute (Banner Health) in Sun City, Arizona.
“This is a first-in-class drug where the vast majority of clinicians have no experience with it, and patients and their caregivers are already asking for it, and there are some really important conversations to be had – not only about who may qualify to begin with and also about potential effectiveness and safety,” Dr. Atri added.
The aducanumab recommendations were published online July 27 in the Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease to coincide with their presentation at the 2021 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
A separate article outlining the key recommendations was published in Alzheimer’s and Dementia: Translational Research and Clinical Interventions.
Patient-centered focus
The panel recommends that aducanumab only be used for patients with clinical features similar to those of the patients who took part in the clinical trials that led to the drug’s approval – patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer’s disease and mild Alzheimer’s disease dementia who have brain amyloid, as confirmed on amyloid positron-emission tomography (PET) or with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) findings consistent with Alzheimer’s disease.
“You’re giving a drug that’s been approved on accelerated status for lowering amyloid, so amyloid status needs to be verified either by an amyloid PET scan or spinal fluid,” said Dr. Atri.
The panel also recommends that patients under consideration for aducanumab treatment have no psychiatric problems; that they be medically stable with no cardiovascular or cardiopulmonary conditions; that they are not taking anticoagulants; that they have no organ failure; and that they have no active cancer except for low-grade basal and squamous cell carcinomas. Current treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine is acceptable.
Dr. Atri noted that the prescribing label for the drug provides “broad strokes about titration.” The panel recommends that the drug be titrated to the highest dose to maximize opportunity for efficacy.
Monthly infusions should begin with a dose of 1 mg/kg for the first and second infusions. They should be increased to 3 mg/kg for infusions three and four and to 6 mg/kg for the fifth and sixth infusions. The intended dose of 10 mg/kg should be administered on the seventh infusion. The target dose level of 10 mg/kg should then be continued for the foreseeable future, the panel notes.
Safety monitoring is critically important. The panel recommends structured monitoring for amyloid-related imaging abnormalities of the effusion (ARIA-E) or hemorrhagic (ARIA-H) type. Patients should undergo MRI at least 1 year before aducanumab treatment is initiated or at baseline if there are any suggestions of a focal brain event since the last MRI. MRI should again be conducted before the fifth, seventh, and 12th infusions.
The panel says the “best practice” for providing aducanumab therapy is to adopt a patient-centered focus.
‘Not a cure’
“There should be comprehensive discussions and clear communication with the patient and care partner regarding the requirements for therapy, the expected outcome of therapy, potential risks and side effects, and the required safety monitoring, as well as uncertainties regarding individual responses and benefits,” said Dr. Atri.
“Patients need to know that this is not a cure. It’s not going to actually make their cognition better, but by removing amyloid, there is a reasonable chance it’s going to slow down clinical decline,” he added.
“You could have two identical twins who would qualify, and when you have this discussion with them, based on the risk and reward calculus, one may reasonably decide, ‘this is not for me,’ and that’s really important,” Dr. Atri added.
He cautioned that these initial recommendations are “a starting point, not a finishing point,” and will be updated as needed.
“This paper takes no stance on advocating for this treatment. But now that it’s available, let’s put up some guardrails and use it appropriately and safety,” Dr. Atri said.
“Clinicians are requesting clarity and more specific information about the appropriate use of this new treatment,” Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement, the Alzheimer’s Association, said in an interview.
These first appropriate-use recommendations are “a first step and will certainly evolve over time as the medication is prescribed,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
The research had no specific funding. Dr. Atri has received honoraria for consulting; participating in independent data safety monitoring boards; providing educational lectures, programs, and materials; or serving on advisory boards for AbbVie, Acadia, Allergan, the Alzheimer’s Association, Axovant, AZ Therapies, Biogen, Grifols, Harvard Medical School Graduate Continuing Education, JOMDD, Lundbeck, Merck, Roche/Genentech, Novo Nordisk, Sunovion, and Suven. Dr. Edelmayer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, the controversial anti-amyloid drug that was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in June for adults with early Alzheimer’s disease.
“There are incredible gaps between the FDA label and what most of us in the field feel needs to happen in terms of detailed guidance on using this drug,” said panel member Alireza Atri, MD, PhD, director of the Banner Sun Health Research Institute (Banner Health) in Sun City, Arizona.
“This is a first-in-class drug where the vast majority of clinicians have no experience with it, and patients and their caregivers are already asking for it, and there are some really important conversations to be had – not only about who may qualify to begin with and also about potential effectiveness and safety,” Dr. Atri added.
The aducanumab recommendations were published online July 27 in the Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease to coincide with their presentation at the 2021 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
A separate article outlining the key recommendations was published in Alzheimer’s and Dementia: Translational Research and Clinical Interventions.
Patient-centered focus
The panel recommends that aducanumab only be used for patients with clinical features similar to those of the patients who took part in the clinical trials that led to the drug’s approval – patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer’s disease and mild Alzheimer’s disease dementia who have brain amyloid, as confirmed on amyloid positron-emission tomography (PET) or with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) findings consistent with Alzheimer’s disease.
“You’re giving a drug that’s been approved on accelerated status for lowering amyloid, so amyloid status needs to be verified either by an amyloid PET scan or spinal fluid,” said Dr. Atri.
The panel also recommends that patients under consideration for aducanumab treatment have no psychiatric problems; that they be medically stable with no cardiovascular or cardiopulmonary conditions; that they are not taking anticoagulants; that they have no organ failure; and that they have no active cancer except for low-grade basal and squamous cell carcinomas. Current treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine is acceptable.
Dr. Atri noted that the prescribing label for the drug provides “broad strokes about titration.” The panel recommends that the drug be titrated to the highest dose to maximize opportunity for efficacy.
Monthly infusions should begin with a dose of 1 mg/kg for the first and second infusions. They should be increased to 3 mg/kg for infusions three and four and to 6 mg/kg for the fifth and sixth infusions. The intended dose of 10 mg/kg should be administered on the seventh infusion. The target dose level of 10 mg/kg should then be continued for the foreseeable future, the panel notes.
Safety monitoring is critically important. The panel recommends structured monitoring for amyloid-related imaging abnormalities of the effusion (ARIA-E) or hemorrhagic (ARIA-H) type. Patients should undergo MRI at least 1 year before aducanumab treatment is initiated or at baseline if there are any suggestions of a focal brain event since the last MRI. MRI should again be conducted before the fifth, seventh, and 12th infusions.
The panel says the “best practice” for providing aducanumab therapy is to adopt a patient-centered focus.
‘Not a cure’
“There should be comprehensive discussions and clear communication with the patient and care partner regarding the requirements for therapy, the expected outcome of therapy, potential risks and side effects, and the required safety monitoring, as well as uncertainties regarding individual responses and benefits,” said Dr. Atri.
“Patients need to know that this is not a cure. It’s not going to actually make their cognition better, but by removing amyloid, there is a reasonable chance it’s going to slow down clinical decline,” he added.
“You could have two identical twins who would qualify, and when you have this discussion with them, based on the risk and reward calculus, one may reasonably decide, ‘this is not for me,’ and that’s really important,” Dr. Atri added.
He cautioned that these initial recommendations are “a starting point, not a finishing point,” and will be updated as needed.
“This paper takes no stance on advocating for this treatment. But now that it’s available, let’s put up some guardrails and use it appropriately and safety,” Dr. Atri said.
“Clinicians are requesting clarity and more specific information about the appropriate use of this new treatment,” Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement, the Alzheimer’s Association, said in an interview.
These first appropriate-use recommendations are “a first step and will certainly evolve over time as the medication is prescribed,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
The research had no specific funding. Dr. Atri has received honoraria for consulting; participating in independent data safety monitoring boards; providing educational lectures, programs, and materials; or serving on advisory boards for AbbVie, Acadia, Allergan, the Alzheimer’s Association, Axovant, AZ Therapies, Biogen, Grifols, Harvard Medical School Graduate Continuing Education, JOMDD, Lundbeck, Merck, Roche/Genentech, Novo Nordisk, Sunovion, and Suven. Dr. Edelmayer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, the controversial anti-amyloid drug that was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in June for adults with early Alzheimer’s disease.
“There are incredible gaps between the FDA label and what most of us in the field feel needs to happen in terms of detailed guidance on using this drug,” said panel member Alireza Atri, MD, PhD, director of the Banner Sun Health Research Institute (Banner Health) in Sun City, Arizona.
“This is a first-in-class drug where the vast majority of clinicians have no experience with it, and patients and their caregivers are already asking for it, and there are some really important conversations to be had – not only about who may qualify to begin with and also about potential effectiveness and safety,” Dr. Atri added.
The aducanumab recommendations were published online July 27 in the Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease to coincide with their presentation at the 2021 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
A separate article outlining the key recommendations was published in Alzheimer’s and Dementia: Translational Research and Clinical Interventions.
Patient-centered focus
The panel recommends that aducanumab only be used for patients with clinical features similar to those of the patients who took part in the clinical trials that led to the drug’s approval – patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer’s disease and mild Alzheimer’s disease dementia who have brain amyloid, as confirmed on amyloid positron-emission tomography (PET) or with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) findings consistent with Alzheimer’s disease.
“You’re giving a drug that’s been approved on accelerated status for lowering amyloid, so amyloid status needs to be verified either by an amyloid PET scan or spinal fluid,” said Dr. Atri.
The panel also recommends that patients under consideration for aducanumab treatment have no psychiatric problems; that they be medically stable with no cardiovascular or cardiopulmonary conditions; that they are not taking anticoagulants; that they have no organ failure; and that they have no active cancer except for low-grade basal and squamous cell carcinomas. Current treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine is acceptable.
Dr. Atri noted that the prescribing label for the drug provides “broad strokes about titration.” The panel recommends that the drug be titrated to the highest dose to maximize opportunity for efficacy.
Monthly infusions should begin with a dose of 1 mg/kg for the first and second infusions. They should be increased to 3 mg/kg for infusions three and four and to 6 mg/kg for the fifth and sixth infusions. The intended dose of 10 mg/kg should be administered on the seventh infusion. The target dose level of 10 mg/kg should then be continued for the foreseeable future, the panel notes.
Safety monitoring is critically important. The panel recommends structured monitoring for amyloid-related imaging abnormalities of the effusion (ARIA-E) or hemorrhagic (ARIA-H) type. Patients should undergo MRI at least 1 year before aducanumab treatment is initiated or at baseline if there are any suggestions of a focal brain event since the last MRI. MRI should again be conducted before the fifth, seventh, and 12th infusions.
The panel says the “best practice” for providing aducanumab therapy is to adopt a patient-centered focus.
‘Not a cure’
“There should be comprehensive discussions and clear communication with the patient and care partner regarding the requirements for therapy, the expected outcome of therapy, potential risks and side effects, and the required safety monitoring, as well as uncertainties regarding individual responses and benefits,” said Dr. Atri.
“Patients need to know that this is not a cure. It’s not going to actually make their cognition better, but by removing amyloid, there is a reasonable chance it’s going to slow down clinical decline,” he added.
“You could have two identical twins who would qualify, and when you have this discussion with them, based on the risk and reward calculus, one may reasonably decide, ‘this is not for me,’ and that’s really important,” Dr. Atri added.
He cautioned that these initial recommendations are “a starting point, not a finishing point,” and will be updated as needed.
“This paper takes no stance on advocating for this treatment. But now that it’s available, let’s put up some guardrails and use it appropriately and safety,” Dr. Atri said.
“Clinicians are requesting clarity and more specific information about the appropriate use of this new treatment,” Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement, the Alzheimer’s Association, said in an interview.
These first appropriate-use recommendations are “a first step and will certainly evolve over time as the medication is prescribed,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
The research had no specific funding. Dr. Atri has received honoraria for consulting; participating in independent data safety monitoring boards; providing educational lectures, programs, and materials; or serving on advisory boards for AbbVie, Acadia, Allergan, the Alzheimer’s Association, Axovant, AZ Therapies, Biogen, Grifols, Harvard Medical School Graduate Continuing Education, JOMDD, Lundbeck, Merck, Roche/Genentech, Novo Nordisk, Sunovion, and Suven. Dr. Edelmayer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From AAIC 2021
In sickness and in health: Spouses can share risk for cardiac events
A study from Japan suggests that a history of cardiovascular events in a spouse may elevate risk for future CV events in the other partner, with one caveat: Men in the cohort study were at increased risk if their wives had such a history, but the association was only one way. The risk of events didn’t go up for women with husbands who had previously experienced a CV event.
The results highlight the need for clinicians to screen and possibly intervene with a primary CV prevention strategy “not only first-degree relatives but also spouses with a history of cardiovascular disease,” which is not currently part of the primary prevention guidelines, Hiroyuki Ohbe, MD, University of Tokyo, told this news organization.
In their study published online July 9 in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, Dr. Ohbe and Hideo Yasunaga, MD, PhD, of the same institution, assessed the risk of subsequent CV events in adults with a spouse who had experienced a stroke of any kind or had clinical ischemic heart disease such as angina or myocardial infarction.
Johanna Contreras, MD, director of heart failure at Mount Sinai Health System in New York, is not surprised by the finding that a wife’s CV history is linked to the CV risk in the husband.
“I see this often in my practice. When you live with someone, you also behave in a similar way as the other person,” Dr. Contreras told this news organization. “For example, couples who live together are likely to both exercise and have a healthy diet and not smoke.”
And most notably, she said, “the women are usually the ones who drive the healthy behaviors in the family; they watch what the family eats, where they eat, when they eat, and the men tend to allow the women to guide this behavior.”
Dr. Ohbe and Dr. Yasunaga agree, proposing that different results for men and women in the analysis may be because of the dependence of working-aged men on their wives for major aspects of lifestyle, such as diet and exercise. Moreover, they write, increased psychological and physical stress from taking care of a spouse with CV disease may also play a role, as caregivers often neglect their own health.
The team identified 13,759 adults in a large administrative database with no history of CV disease whose spouse had such a history at their first health checkup; they were the exposure group. The team matched each of them with up to four individuals (n = 55,027) who had no CV disease history and spouses without CV disease at their first health checkup; they were the nonexposure group.
The mean observation period was 7.9 years from the first health checkup, at which the subjects’ mean age was 56 years. During the follow-up, more people in the exposure group than the nonexposure group had a history of CV events, 0.6% versus 0.4%.
In the overall cohort, the hazard ratio for future severe CV events – heart failure hospitalization or MI – in those with spouses with a history of CV disease was 1.48 (95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.90).
When stratified by sex, men whose wives had CV disease showed a significantly increased risk of a future severe CV event (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.22-2.32). But women with husbands with CV disease did not (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.82-1.83).
The results of all four sensitivity analyses were similar to those of the primary analysis, both in the overall cohort and in the cohorts stratified by sex. The investigators performed multivariate survival analyses: one that excluded people whose partners had died, one that included death by any cause as an outcome, and one with propensity score matching.
Further studies are needed to confirm their observations and test whether a primary prevention strategy targeted at married couples could reduce CV events, note Dr. Ohbe and Dr. Yasunaga.
The findings have implications for everyday clinical practice, Dr. Contreras said. “When I see a patient who is married and has had a heart attack, I will insist on seeing the partner as well, and I will counsel them on working together to change their lifestyle,” she said in an interview.
“Often when you have that discussion with the couple after one has a heart attack, they quit smoking together, they go the gym together, and they get healthier together,” she said. “That’s now a very important conversation we have before they leave the hospital.”
The study was supported by grants from the Japan Ministry of Health, Ministry of Labour and Welfare, and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Dr. Ohbe, Dr. Yasunaga, and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A study from Japan suggests that a history of cardiovascular events in a spouse may elevate risk for future CV events in the other partner, with one caveat: Men in the cohort study were at increased risk if their wives had such a history, but the association was only one way. The risk of events didn’t go up for women with husbands who had previously experienced a CV event.
The results highlight the need for clinicians to screen and possibly intervene with a primary CV prevention strategy “not only first-degree relatives but also spouses with a history of cardiovascular disease,” which is not currently part of the primary prevention guidelines, Hiroyuki Ohbe, MD, University of Tokyo, told this news organization.
In their study published online July 9 in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, Dr. Ohbe and Hideo Yasunaga, MD, PhD, of the same institution, assessed the risk of subsequent CV events in adults with a spouse who had experienced a stroke of any kind or had clinical ischemic heart disease such as angina or myocardial infarction.
Johanna Contreras, MD, director of heart failure at Mount Sinai Health System in New York, is not surprised by the finding that a wife’s CV history is linked to the CV risk in the husband.
“I see this often in my practice. When you live with someone, you also behave in a similar way as the other person,” Dr. Contreras told this news organization. “For example, couples who live together are likely to both exercise and have a healthy diet and not smoke.”
And most notably, she said, “the women are usually the ones who drive the healthy behaviors in the family; they watch what the family eats, where they eat, when they eat, and the men tend to allow the women to guide this behavior.”
Dr. Ohbe and Dr. Yasunaga agree, proposing that different results for men and women in the analysis may be because of the dependence of working-aged men on their wives for major aspects of lifestyle, such as diet and exercise. Moreover, they write, increased psychological and physical stress from taking care of a spouse with CV disease may also play a role, as caregivers often neglect their own health.
The team identified 13,759 adults in a large administrative database with no history of CV disease whose spouse had such a history at their first health checkup; they were the exposure group. The team matched each of them with up to four individuals (n = 55,027) who had no CV disease history and spouses without CV disease at their first health checkup; they were the nonexposure group.
The mean observation period was 7.9 years from the first health checkup, at which the subjects’ mean age was 56 years. During the follow-up, more people in the exposure group than the nonexposure group had a history of CV events, 0.6% versus 0.4%.
In the overall cohort, the hazard ratio for future severe CV events – heart failure hospitalization or MI – in those with spouses with a history of CV disease was 1.48 (95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.90).
When stratified by sex, men whose wives had CV disease showed a significantly increased risk of a future severe CV event (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.22-2.32). But women with husbands with CV disease did not (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.82-1.83).
The results of all four sensitivity analyses were similar to those of the primary analysis, both in the overall cohort and in the cohorts stratified by sex. The investigators performed multivariate survival analyses: one that excluded people whose partners had died, one that included death by any cause as an outcome, and one with propensity score matching.
Further studies are needed to confirm their observations and test whether a primary prevention strategy targeted at married couples could reduce CV events, note Dr. Ohbe and Dr. Yasunaga.
The findings have implications for everyday clinical practice, Dr. Contreras said. “When I see a patient who is married and has had a heart attack, I will insist on seeing the partner as well, and I will counsel them on working together to change their lifestyle,” she said in an interview.
“Often when you have that discussion with the couple after one has a heart attack, they quit smoking together, they go the gym together, and they get healthier together,” she said. “That’s now a very important conversation we have before they leave the hospital.”
The study was supported by grants from the Japan Ministry of Health, Ministry of Labour and Welfare, and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Dr. Ohbe, Dr. Yasunaga, and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A study from Japan suggests that a history of cardiovascular events in a spouse may elevate risk for future CV events in the other partner, with one caveat: Men in the cohort study were at increased risk if their wives had such a history, but the association was only one way. The risk of events didn’t go up for women with husbands who had previously experienced a CV event.
The results highlight the need for clinicians to screen and possibly intervene with a primary CV prevention strategy “not only first-degree relatives but also spouses with a history of cardiovascular disease,” which is not currently part of the primary prevention guidelines, Hiroyuki Ohbe, MD, University of Tokyo, told this news organization.
In their study published online July 9 in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, Dr. Ohbe and Hideo Yasunaga, MD, PhD, of the same institution, assessed the risk of subsequent CV events in adults with a spouse who had experienced a stroke of any kind or had clinical ischemic heart disease such as angina or myocardial infarction.
Johanna Contreras, MD, director of heart failure at Mount Sinai Health System in New York, is not surprised by the finding that a wife’s CV history is linked to the CV risk in the husband.
“I see this often in my practice. When you live with someone, you also behave in a similar way as the other person,” Dr. Contreras told this news organization. “For example, couples who live together are likely to both exercise and have a healthy diet and not smoke.”
And most notably, she said, “the women are usually the ones who drive the healthy behaviors in the family; they watch what the family eats, where they eat, when they eat, and the men tend to allow the women to guide this behavior.”
Dr. Ohbe and Dr. Yasunaga agree, proposing that different results for men and women in the analysis may be because of the dependence of working-aged men on their wives for major aspects of lifestyle, such as diet and exercise. Moreover, they write, increased psychological and physical stress from taking care of a spouse with CV disease may also play a role, as caregivers often neglect their own health.
The team identified 13,759 adults in a large administrative database with no history of CV disease whose spouse had such a history at their first health checkup; they were the exposure group. The team matched each of them with up to four individuals (n = 55,027) who had no CV disease history and spouses without CV disease at their first health checkup; they were the nonexposure group.
The mean observation period was 7.9 years from the first health checkup, at which the subjects’ mean age was 56 years. During the follow-up, more people in the exposure group than the nonexposure group had a history of CV events, 0.6% versus 0.4%.
In the overall cohort, the hazard ratio for future severe CV events – heart failure hospitalization or MI – in those with spouses with a history of CV disease was 1.48 (95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.90).
When stratified by sex, men whose wives had CV disease showed a significantly increased risk of a future severe CV event (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.22-2.32). But women with husbands with CV disease did not (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.82-1.83).
The results of all four sensitivity analyses were similar to those of the primary analysis, both in the overall cohort and in the cohorts stratified by sex. The investigators performed multivariate survival analyses: one that excluded people whose partners had died, one that included death by any cause as an outcome, and one with propensity score matching.
Further studies are needed to confirm their observations and test whether a primary prevention strategy targeted at married couples could reduce CV events, note Dr. Ohbe and Dr. Yasunaga.
The findings have implications for everyday clinical practice, Dr. Contreras said. “When I see a patient who is married and has had a heart attack, I will insist on seeing the partner as well, and I will counsel them on working together to change their lifestyle,” she said in an interview.
“Often when you have that discussion with the couple after one has a heart attack, they quit smoking together, they go the gym together, and they get healthier together,” she said. “That’s now a very important conversation we have before they leave the hospital.”
The study was supported by grants from the Japan Ministry of Health, Ministry of Labour and Welfare, and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Dr. Ohbe, Dr. Yasunaga, and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Mayo, Cleveland Clinics top latest U.S. News & World Report hospital rankings
This year’s expanded report debuts new ratings for seven “important procedures and conditions to help patients, in consultation with their doctors, narrow down their choice of hospital based on the specific type of care they need,” Ben Harder, managing editor and chief of health analysis, said in a news release.
With new ratings for myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture, and back surgery (spinal fusion), the report now ranks 17 procedures and conditions.
Also new to the 2021 report, which marks the 32nd edition, is a look at racial disparities in health care and the inclusion of health equity measures alongside the hospital rankings.
The new measures examine whether the patients each hospital has treated reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the surrounding community, among other aspects of health equity.
“At roughly four out of five hospitals, we found that the community’s minority residents were underrepresented among patients receiving services such as joint replacement, cancer surgery and common heart procedures,” Mr. Harder said.
“Against this backdrop, however, we found important exceptions – hospitals that provide care to a disproportionate share of their community’s minority residents. These metrics are just a beginning; we aim to expand on our measurement of health equity in the future,” Mr. Harder added.
Mayo and Cleveland Clinic remain tops
Following the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic once again takes the No. 2 spot in the magazine’s latest annual honor roll of best hospitals, which highlights hospitals that deliver exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.
UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, holds the No. 3 spot in 2021. In 2020, UCLA Medical Center and New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York, sat in a tie at No. 4.
In 2021, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, which held the No. 3 spot in 2020, drops to No. 4, while Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston takes the No. 5 spot, up from No. 6 in 2020.
Rounding out the top 10 (in order) are Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles; New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; NYU Langone Hospitals, New York; UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco; and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago.
2021-2022 Best Hospitals honor roll
1. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
2. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland
3. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles
4. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore
5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
6. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, San Francisco
7. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York
8. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York
9. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco
10. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago
11. University of Michigan Hospitals–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.
12. Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, Calif.
13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia
14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
15. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix, Phoenix
16. Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston
17. (tie) Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis
17. (tie) Mount Sinai Hospital, New York Rush University Medical Center, Chicago
19. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago
20. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
For the 2021-2022 rankings and ratings, the magazine compared more than 4,750 hospitals nationwide in 15 specialties and 17 procedures and conditions.
At least 2,039 hospitals received a high performance rating in at least one of the services rated; 11 hospitals received high performance in all 17. A total of 175 hospitals were nationally ranked in at least one specialty
For specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center continues to hold the No. 1 spot in cancer care, the Hospital for Special Surgery continues to be No. 1 in orthopedics, and the Cleveland Clinic continues to be No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery.
Top five for cancer
1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York
3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
4. Dana-Farber/Brigham & Women’s Cancer Center, Boston
5. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland
Top five for cardiology and heart surgery
1. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland
2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York
5. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York
Top five for orthopedics
1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York
2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
4. NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York
5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles
The magazine noted that data for the 2021-2022 Best Hospitals rankings and ratings were not affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which began after the end of the data collection period.
The methodologies used in determining the rankings are based largely on objective measures, such as risk-adjusted survival, discharge-to-home rates, volume, and quality of nursing, among other care-related indicators.
The full report is available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This year’s expanded report debuts new ratings for seven “important procedures and conditions to help patients, in consultation with their doctors, narrow down their choice of hospital based on the specific type of care they need,” Ben Harder, managing editor and chief of health analysis, said in a news release.
With new ratings for myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture, and back surgery (spinal fusion), the report now ranks 17 procedures and conditions.
Also new to the 2021 report, which marks the 32nd edition, is a look at racial disparities in health care and the inclusion of health equity measures alongside the hospital rankings.
The new measures examine whether the patients each hospital has treated reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the surrounding community, among other aspects of health equity.
“At roughly four out of five hospitals, we found that the community’s minority residents were underrepresented among patients receiving services such as joint replacement, cancer surgery and common heart procedures,” Mr. Harder said.
“Against this backdrop, however, we found important exceptions – hospitals that provide care to a disproportionate share of their community’s minority residents. These metrics are just a beginning; we aim to expand on our measurement of health equity in the future,” Mr. Harder added.
Mayo and Cleveland Clinic remain tops
Following the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic once again takes the No. 2 spot in the magazine’s latest annual honor roll of best hospitals, which highlights hospitals that deliver exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.
UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, holds the No. 3 spot in 2021. In 2020, UCLA Medical Center and New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York, sat in a tie at No. 4.
In 2021, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, which held the No. 3 spot in 2020, drops to No. 4, while Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston takes the No. 5 spot, up from No. 6 in 2020.
Rounding out the top 10 (in order) are Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles; New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; NYU Langone Hospitals, New York; UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco; and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago.
2021-2022 Best Hospitals honor roll
1. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
2. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland
3. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles
4. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore
5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
6. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, San Francisco
7. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York
8. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York
9. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco
10. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago
11. University of Michigan Hospitals–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.
12. Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, Calif.
13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia
14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
15. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix, Phoenix
16. Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston
17. (tie) Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis
17. (tie) Mount Sinai Hospital, New York Rush University Medical Center, Chicago
19. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago
20. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
For the 2021-2022 rankings and ratings, the magazine compared more than 4,750 hospitals nationwide in 15 specialties and 17 procedures and conditions.
At least 2,039 hospitals received a high performance rating in at least one of the services rated; 11 hospitals received high performance in all 17. A total of 175 hospitals were nationally ranked in at least one specialty
For specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center continues to hold the No. 1 spot in cancer care, the Hospital for Special Surgery continues to be No. 1 in orthopedics, and the Cleveland Clinic continues to be No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery.
Top five for cancer
1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York
3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
4. Dana-Farber/Brigham & Women’s Cancer Center, Boston
5. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland
Top five for cardiology and heart surgery
1. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland
2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York
5. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York
Top five for orthopedics
1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York
2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
4. NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York
5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles
The magazine noted that data for the 2021-2022 Best Hospitals rankings and ratings were not affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which began after the end of the data collection period.
The methodologies used in determining the rankings are based largely on objective measures, such as risk-adjusted survival, discharge-to-home rates, volume, and quality of nursing, among other care-related indicators.
The full report is available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This year’s expanded report debuts new ratings for seven “important procedures and conditions to help patients, in consultation with their doctors, narrow down their choice of hospital based on the specific type of care they need,” Ben Harder, managing editor and chief of health analysis, said in a news release.
With new ratings for myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture, and back surgery (spinal fusion), the report now ranks 17 procedures and conditions.
Also new to the 2021 report, which marks the 32nd edition, is a look at racial disparities in health care and the inclusion of health equity measures alongside the hospital rankings.
The new measures examine whether the patients each hospital has treated reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the surrounding community, among other aspects of health equity.
“At roughly four out of five hospitals, we found that the community’s minority residents were underrepresented among patients receiving services such as joint replacement, cancer surgery and common heart procedures,” Mr. Harder said.
“Against this backdrop, however, we found important exceptions – hospitals that provide care to a disproportionate share of their community’s minority residents. These metrics are just a beginning; we aim to expand on our measurement of health equity in the future,” Mr. Harder added.
Mayo and Cleveland Clinic remain tops
Following the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic once again takes the No. 2 spot in the magazine’s latest annual honor roll of best hospitals, which highlights hospitals that deliver exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.
UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, holds the No. 3 spot in 2021. In 2020, UCLA Medical Center and New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York, sat in a tie at No. 4.
In 2021, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, which held the No. 3 spot in 2020, drops to No. 4, while Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston takes the No. 5 spot, up from No. 6 in 2020.
Rounding out the top 10 (in order) are Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles; New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; NYU Langone Hospitals, New York; UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco; and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago.
2021-2022 Best Hospitals honor roll
1. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
2. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland
3. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles
4. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore
5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
6. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, San Francisco
7. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York
8. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York
9. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco
10. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago
11. University of Michigan Hospitals–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.
12. Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, Calif.
13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia
14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
15. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix, Phoenix
16. Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston
17. (tie) Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis
17. (tie) Mount Sinai Hospital, New York Rush University Medical Center, Chicago
19. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago
20. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
For the 2021-2022 rankings and ratings, the magazine compared more than 4,750 hospitals nationwide in 15 specialties and 17 procedures and conditions.
At least 2,039 hospitals received a high performance rating in at least one of the services rated; 11 hospitals received high performance in all 17. A total of 175 hospitals were nationally ranked in at least one specialty
For specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center continues to hold the No. 1 spot in cancer care, the Hospital for Special Surgery continues to be No. 1 in orthopedics, and the Cleveland Clinic continues to be No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery.
Top five for cancer
1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York
3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
4. Dana-Farber/Brigham & Women’s Cancer Center, Boston
5. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland
Top five for cardiology and heart surgery
1. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland
2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York
5. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York
Top five for orthopedics
1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York
2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
4. NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York
5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles
The magazine noted that data for the 2021-2022 Best Hospitals rankings and ratings were not affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which began after the end of the data collection period.
The methodologies used in determining the rankings are based largely on objective measures, such as risk-adjusted survival, discharge-to-home rates, volume, and quality of nursing, among other care-related indicators.
The full report is available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Strong support for causal role of cannabis in schizophrenia
The long-observed association between cannabis use and schizophrenia is likely partially causal in nature, new research shows.
Investigators found a clear increase in the proportion of schizophrenia cases linked to cannabis use disorder over the past 25 years.
“In my view, the association is most likely causative, at least to a large extent,” first author Carsten Hjorthøj, PhD, from the Copenhagen Research Center for Mental Health, Copenhagen University Hospital, told this news organization.
“It is, of course, nearly impossible to use epidemiological studies to actually prove causation, but all the numbers behave exactly in the way that would be expected under the theory of causation,” said Dr. Hjorthøj.
The study was published online July 21 in JAMA Psychiatry.
Far from harmless
The findings are based on Danish national health registry data. The study sample included all people in Denmark born before Dec. 31, 2000 who were aged 16 years or older at some point from Jan. 1, 1972 to Dec. 31, 2016. The data analysis was conducted from August 2020 to April 2021.
Despite some fluctuation, there was a general increase in the population-attributable risk fraction (PARF) for cannabis use disorder with regard to schizophrenia over time, the researchers report. The PARF increased from about 2% in 1995 to about 4% in 2000 and has hovered from 6% to 8% since 2010.
“Although not in itself proof of causality, our study provides evidence of the theory of cannabis being a component cause of schizophrenia,” the investigators write.
The findings are “particularly important with the increasing legalization of cannabis for both medicinal and recreational uses seeming to lead to an increase in the perception of cannabis as relatively harmless and possibly in the uptake of cannabis use, especially among youth,” they add.
“Although psychosis is not the only outcome of interest in terms of cannabis use, our study clearly indicates that cannabis should not be considered harmless,” they conclude.
Cases linked to cannabis underestimated?
In an accompanying editorial, Tyler VanderWeele, PhD, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, notes that estimates in this study could be conservative as a result of underdiagnosis of cannabis use disorder and because it only examined cannabis use disorder.
“Cannabis use disorder is not responsible for most schizophrenia cases, but it is responsible for a nonnegligible and increasing proportion. This should be considered in discussions regarding legalization and regulation of the use of cannabis,” Dr. VanderWeele writes.
Experts with the Science Media Center, a U.K. nonprofit organization, also weighed in on the results.
Terrie Moffitt, PhD, with King’s College London, said the study “adds important evidence that patients with diagnosed cannabis use disorder are more at risk for psychosis now than they used to be.”
“ However, most cannabis users, even those who are dependent on it, never come in to clinics for treatment. Also, it is known that people who seek treatment tend to have multiple mental health problems, not solely cannabis problems,” Dr. Moffitt commented.
Emir Englund, PhD, also from King’s College London, said the study “strengthens an already well-established association between the two. However, it is unable to shed additional light on whether cannabis causes schizophrenia or not, due to the observational nature of the study.”
“In my opinion, the current scientific view of cannabis use as a ‘component cause’ which interacts with other risk factors to cause schizophrenia but is neither necessary nor sufficient to do so on its own still stands,” Dr. Englund said.
The study was supported by a grant from Lundbeckfonden. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. VanderWeele has received grants from the National Cancer Institute and the John Templeton Foundation. Dr. Moffitt and Dr. Englund have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The long-observed association between cannabis use and schizophrenia is likely partially causal in nature, new research shows.
Investigators found a clear increase in the proportion of schizophrenia cases linked to cannabis use disorder over the past 25 years.
“In my view, the association is most likely causative, at least to a large extent,” first author Carsten Hjorthøj, PhD, from the Copenhagen Research Center for Mental Health, Copenhagen University Hospital, told this news organization.
“It is, of course, nearly impossible to use epidemiological studies to actually prove causation, but all the numbers behave exactly in the way that would be expected under the theory of causation,” said Dr. Hjorthøj.
The study was published online July 21 in JAMA Psychiatry.
Far from harmless
The findings are based on Danish national health registry data. The study sample included all people in Denmark born before Dec. 31, 2000 who were aged 16 years or older at some point from Jan. 1, 1972 to Dec. 31, 2016. The data analysis was conducted from August 2020 to April 2021.
Despite some fluctuation, there was a general increase in the population-attributable risk fraction (PARF) for cannabis use disorder with regard to schizophrenia over time, the researchers report. The PARF increased from about 2% in 1995 to about 4% in 2000 and has hovered from 6% to 8% since 2010.
“Although not in itself proof of causality, our study provides evidence of the theory of cannabis being a component cause of schizophrenia,” the investigators write.
The findings are “particularly important with the increasing legalization of cannabis for both medicinal and recreational uses seeming to lead to an increase in the perception of cannabis as relatively harmless and possibly in the uptake of cannabis use, especially among youth,” they add.
“Although psychosis is not the only outcome of interest in terms of cannabis use, our study clearly indicates that cannabis should not be considered harmless,” they conclude.
Cases linked to cannabis underestimated?
In an accompanying editorial, Tyler VanderWeele, PhD, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, notes that estimates in this study could be conservative as a result of underdiagnosis of cannabis use disorder and because it only examined cannabis use disorder.
“Cannabis use disorder is not responsible for most schizophrenia cases, but it is responsible for a nonnegligible and increasing proportion. This should be considered in discussions regarding legalization and regulation of the use of cannabis,” Dr. VanderWeele writes.
Experts with the Science Media Center, a U.K. nonprofit organization, also weighed in on the results.
Terrie Moffitt, PhD, with King’s College London, said the study “adds important evidence that patients with diagnosed cannabis use disorder are more at risk for psychosis now than they used to be.”
“ However, most cannabis users, even those who are dependent on it, never come in to clinics for treatment. Also, it is known that people who seek treatment tend to have multiple mental health problems, not solely cannabis problems,” Dr. Moffitt commented.
Emir Englund, PhD, also from King’s College London, said the study “strengthens an already well-established association between the two. However, it is unable to shed additional light on whether cannabis causes schizophrenia or not, due to the observational nature of the study.”
“In my opinion, the current scientific view of cannabis use as a ‘component cause’ which interacts with other risk factors to cause schizophrenia but is neither necessary nor sufficient to do so on its own still stands,” Dr. Englund said.
The study was supported by a grant from Lundbeckfonden. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. VanderWeele has received grants from the National Cancer Institute and the John Templeton Foundation. Dr. Moffitt and Dr. Englund have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The long-observed association between cannabis use and schizophrenia is likely partially causal in nature, new research shows.
Investigators found a clear increase in the proportion of schizophrenia cases linked to cannabis use disorder over the past 25 years.
“In my view, the association is most likely causative, at least to a large extent,” first author Carsten Hjorthøj, PhD, from the Copenhagen Research Center for Mental Health, Copenhagen University Hospital, told this news organization.
“It is, of course, nearly impossible to use epidemiological studies to actually prove causation, but all the numbers behave exactly in the way that would be expected under the theory of causation,” said Dr. Hjorthøj.
The study was published online July 21 in JAMA Psychiatry.
Far from harmless
The findings are based on Danish national health registry data. The study sample included all people in Denmark born before Dec. 31, 2000 who were aged 16 years or older at some point from Jan. 1, 1972 to Dec. 31, 2016. The data analysis was conducted from August 2020 to April 2021.
Despite some fluctuation, there was a general increase in the population-attributable risk fraction (PARF) for cannabis use disorder with regard to schizophrenia over time, the researchers report. The PARF increased from about 2% in 1995 to about 4% in 2000 and has hovered from 6% to 8% since 2010.
“Although not in itself proof of causality, our study provides evidence of the theory of cannabis being a component cause of schizophrenia,” the investigators write.
The findings are “particularly important with the increasing legalization of cannabis for both medicinal and recreational uses seeming to lead to an increase in the perception of cannabis as relatively harmless and possibly in the uptake of cannabis use, especially among youth,” they add.
“Although psychosis is not the only outcome of interest in terms of cannabis use, our study clearly indicates that cannabis should not be considered harmless,” they conclude.
Cases linked to cannabis underestimated?
In an accompanying editorial, Tyler VanderWeele, PhD, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, notes that estimates in this study could be conservative as a result of underdiagnosis of cannabis use disorder and because it only examined cannabis use disorder.
“Cannabis use disorder is not responsible for most schizophrenia cases, but it is responsible for a nonnegligible and increasing proportion. This should be considered in discussions regarding legalization and regulation of the use of cannabis,” Dr. VanderWeele writes.
Experts with the Science Media Center, a U.K. nonprofit organization, also weighed in on the results.
Terrie Moffitt, PhD, with King’s College London, said the study “adds important evidence that patients with diagnosed cannabis use disorder are more at risk for psychosis now than they used to be.”
“ However, most cannabis users, even those who are dependent on it, never come in to clinics for treatment. Also, it is known that people who seek treatment tend to have multiple mental health problems, not solely cannabis problems,” Dr. Moffitt commented.
Emir Englund, PhD, also from King’s College London, said the study “strengthens an already well-established association between the two. However, it is unable to shed additional light on whether cannabis causes schizophrenia or not, due to the observational nature of the study.”
“In my opinion, the current scientific view of cannabis use as a ‘component cause’ which interacts with other risk factors to cause schizophrenia but is neither necessary nor sufficient to do so on its own still stands,” Dr. Englund said.
The study was supported by a grant from Lundbeckfonden. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. VanderWeele has received grants from the National Cancer Institute and the John Templeton Foundation. Dr. Moffitt and Dr. Englund have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA OKs odevixibat for pruritus associated with rare liver disease
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved odevixibat (Bylvay, Albireo Pharma), the first treatment for pruritus associated with all types of progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis (PFIC).
PFIC is a rare disorder affecting an estimated one to two people per 100,000. The disorder usually appears within the first few months of life and causes progressive, life-threatening liver disease, often leading to cirrhosis and liver failure before age 10.
In PFIC, liver cells are unable to drain bile acids, leading to the buildup of toxic substances in the liver. While the precise cause of severe itching in patients with PFIC is unknown, it may involve increased levels of bile acids in the body and skin.
Odevixibat is a potent, nonsystemic ileal bile acid transport inhibitor that does not need refrigeration and is given as a once-daily capsule or opened and sprinkled onto soft foods, the company said in a news release announcing the approval.
There are at least three types of PFIC; all are inherited genetic conditions caused by gene mutations. Odevixibat is indicated to treat all subtypes.
“Treating children with PFIC can be difficult and frustrating given the current treatment options. Bylvay gives us a nonsurgical option and will change how we treat PFIC,” Richard Thompson, MD, principal investigator for the two trials that led to the approval, said in the news release.
“With this approval, my colleagues and I now have the opportunity to revisit how PFIC patients are being managed, and we are hopeful for better outcomes for these children,” said Dr. Thompson, professor of molecular hepatology at King’s College London.
The approval of odevixibat was supported by data from the PEDFIC 1 and PEDFIC 2 trials.
PEDFIC 1 enrolled 62 children with PFIC and severe itching, with 20 assigned to placebo and 42 to odevixibat, given once daily with a meal in the morning. Odevixibat met both of its primary endpoints, with the drug improving pruritus (P = .004) and reducing serum bile acid responses (P = .003).
In PEDFIC 2, a long-term, open-label extension study, the effects of odevixibat on pruritis and serum bile acids were sustained up to 48 weeks.
Odevixibat was well tolerated in both trials, with the most common treatment-related gastrointestinal adverse events being diarrhea/frequent stools. There were no serious treatment-related adverse events.
Children taking the drug should undergo liver test monitoring periodically during treatment, the FDA said when announcing the approval. Odevixibat may affect absorption of fat-soluble vitamins such as A, D, E, and K. Patients should be monitored for fat-soluble vitamin deficiency while taking the drug.
Full prescribing information is available online.
“Until now, invasive surgery was the only approved treatment option. With the approval of Bylvay, parents may find hope in having a less invasive treatment option available,” Emily Ventura, leader of the PFIC Advocacy and Resource Network and mother to a child with PFIC, said in the news release.
The company said it will launch odevixibat “immediately” to accelerate availability for patients and families affected by PFIC.
Odevixibat is also being studied in other rare pediatric cholestatic liver diseases, including biliary atresia and Alagille syndrome.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved odevixibat (Bylvay, Albireo Pharma), the first treatment for pruritus associated with all types of progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis (PFIC).
PFIC is a rare disorder affecting an estimated one to two people per 100,000. The disorder usually appears within the first few months of life and causes progressive, life-threatening liver disease, often leading to cirrhosis and liver failure before age 10.
In PFIC, liver cells are unable to drain bile acids, leading to the buildup of toxic substances in the liver. While the precise cause of severe itching in patients with PFIC is unknown, it may involve increased levels of bile acids in the body and skin.
Odevixibat is a potent, nonsystemic ileal bile acid transport inhibitor that does not need refrigeration and is given as a once-daily capsule or opened and sprinkled onto soft foods, the company said in a news release announcing the approval.
There are at least three types of PFIC; all are inherited genetic conditions caused by gene mutations. Odevixibat is indicated to treat all subtypes.
“Treating children with PFIC can be difficult and frustrating given the current treatment options. Bylvay gives us a nonsurgical option and will change how we treat PFIC,” Richard Thompson, MD, principal investigator for the two trials that led to the approval, said in the news release.
“With this approval, my colleagues and I now have the opportunity to revisit how PFIC patients are being managed, and we are hopeful for better outcomes for these children,” said Dr. Thompson, professor of molecular hepatology at King’s College London.
The approval of odevixibat was supported by data from the PEDFIC 1 and PEDFIC 2 trials.
PEDFIC 1 enrolled 62 children with PFIC and severe itching, with 20 assigned to placebo and 42 to odevixibat, given once daily with a meal in the morning. Odevixibat met both of its primary endpoints, with the drug improving pruritus (P = .004) and reducing serum bile acid responses (P = .003).
In PEDFIC 2, a long-term, open-label extension study, the effects of odevixibat on pruritis and serum bile acids were sustained up to 48 weeks.
Odevixibat was well tolerated in both trials, with the most common treatment-related gastrointestinal adverse events being diarrhea/frequent stools. There were no serious treatment-related adverse events.
Children taking the drug should undergo liver test monitoring periodically during treatment, the FDA said when announcing the approval. Odevixibat may affect absorption of fat-soluble vitamins such as A, D, E, and K. Patients should be monitored for fat-soluble vitamin deficiency while taking the drug.
Full prescribing information is available online.
“Until now, invasive surgery was the only approved treatment option. With the approval of Bylvay, parents may find hope in having a less invasive treatment option available,” Emily Ventura, leader of the PFIC Advocacy and Resource Network and mother to a child with PFIC, said in the news release.
The company said it will launch odevixibat “immediately” to accelerate availability for patients and families affected by PFIC.
Odevixibat is also being studied in other rare pediatric cholestatic liver diseases, including biliary atresia and Alagille syndrome.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved odevixibat (Bylvay, Albireo Pharma), the first treatment for pruritus associated with all types of progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis (PFIC).
PFIC is a rare disorder affecting an estimated one to two people per 100,000. The disorder usually appears within the first few months of life and causes progressive, life-threatening liver disease, often leading to cirrhosis and liver failure before age 10.
In PFIC, liver cells are unable to drain bile acids, leading to the buildup of toxic substances in the liver. While the precise cause of severe itching in patients with PFIC is unknown, it may involve increased levels of bile acids in the body and skin.
Odevixibat is a potent, nonsystemic ileal bile acid transport inhibitor that does not need refrigeration and is given as a once-daily capsule or opened and sprinkled onto soft foods, the company said in a news release announcing the approval.
There are at least three types of PFIC; all are inherited genetic conditions caused by gene mutations. Odevixibat is indicated to treat all subtypes.
“Treating children with PFIC can be difficult and frustrating given the current treatment options. Bylvay gives us a nonsurgical option and will change how we treat PFIC,” Richard Thompson, MD, principal investigator for the two trials that led to the approval, said in the news release.
“With this approval, my colleagues and I now have the opportunity to revisit how PFIC patients are being managed, and we are hopeful for better outcomes for these children,” said Dr. Thompson, professor of molecular hepatology at King’s College London.
The approval of odevixibat was supported by data from the PEDFIC 1 and PEDFIC 2 trials.
PEDFIC 1 enrolled 62 children with PFIC and severe itching, with 20 assigned to placebo and 42 to odevixibat, given once daily with a meal in the morning. Odevixibat met both of its primary endpoints, with the drug improving pruritus (P = .004) and reducing serum bile acid responses (P = .003).
In PEDFIC 2, a long-term, open-label extension study, the effects of odevixibat on pruritis and serum bile acids were sustained up to 48 weeks.
Odevixibat was well tolerated in both trials, with the most common treatment-related gastrointestinal adverse events being diarrhea/frequent stools. There were no serious treatment-related adverse events.
Children taking the drug should undergo liver test monitoring periodically during treatment, the FDA said when announcing the approval. Odevixibat may affect absorption of fat-soluble vitamins such as A, D, E, and K. Patients should be monitored for fat-soluble vitamin deficiency while taking the drug.
Full prescribing information is available online.
“Until now, invasive surgery was the only approved treatment option. With the approval of Bylvay, parents may find hope in having a less invasive treatment option available,” Emily Ventura, leader of the PFIC Advocacy and Resource Network and mother to a child with PFIC, said in the news release.
The company said it will launch odevixibat “immediately” to accelerate availability for patients and families affected by PFIC.
Odevixibat is also being studied in other rare pediatric cholestatic liver diseases, including biliary atresia and Alagille syndrome.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Widely prescribed meds ineffective for low back pain?
Results of a large systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials show very “low certainty evidence” that non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics provide meaningful improvement in pain intensity in patients with low back pain – and may actually increase adverse event risk.
“We found that muscle relaxants might reduce pain in the short term, but on average, the effect is probably too small to be important, and most patients wouldn’t be able to feel any difference in their pain compared to taking a placebo,” study investigator Aidan Cashin, PhD, with the Center for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, and University of New South Wales, Sydney, told this news organization. “There is also an increased risk of side effects,” he added.
The study was published online July 7 in The BMJ.
Global problem
Low back pain is a major global public health problem that burdens individuals, health care systems, and societies.
“Most people, around 80%, will have at least one episode of low back pain during their life,” Dr. Cashin noted.
Muscle relaxants, a broad class of drugs that include non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics and antispastics, are often prescribed for low back pain. In 2020 alone, prescriptions exceeded 1.3 million in England and topped 30 million in the United States.
“However, clinical practice guidelines have provided conflicting recommendations for the use of muscle relaxants to treat low back pain,” Dr. Cashin said.
To assess the efficacy and safety of muscle relaxants, the researchers conducted a detailed analysis of 31 randomized controlled trials that compared muscle relaxants with placebo, usual care, or no treatment in a total of 6,505 adults with nonspecific low back pain.
For acute low back pain, they found “very low certainty evidence” that non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics might reduce pain intensity at 2 weeks or less, but the effect is small – less than 8 points on a 0 to 100 point scale – and not clinically meaningful.
They found little to no effect of non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics on pain intensity at 3 to 13 weeks or on disability at any follow-up time points. None of the trials assessed the effect of muscle relaxants on long-term outcomes.
There was also low-certainty and very-low-certainty evidence that non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics might increase the risk of an adverse event, commonly dizziness, drowsiness, headache, and nausea (relative risk 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.0).
Better research needed
“We were surprised by the findings, as earlier research suggested that muscle relaxants did reduce pain intensity. But when we included all of the most up-to-date research, the results became much less certain,” said Dr. Cashin.
“We were also surprised to see that so much of the research wasn’t done very well, which means that we can’t be very certain in the results. There is a clear need to improve how research is done for low back pain so that we better understand whether medicines can help people or not,” Dr. Cashin said.
“We would encourage clinicians to discuss this uncertainty in the efficacy and safety of muscle relaxants with patients, sharing information about the possibility for a worthwhile benefit in pain reduction but increased risk of experiencing a nonserious adverse event, to allow them to make informed treatment decisions,” corresponding author James McAuley, PhD, University of New South Wales, said in an interview.
“We know that no matter what medicines people with low back pain are taking, they should avoid staying in bed, and they should try to be active and continue with their usual activities, including work, as much as they can. High-quality research shows that people who do this are more likely to recover faster and more completely,” said Dr. McAuley.
A symptom, not a diagnosis
Reached for comment, Andrew Hecht, MD, chief of spine surgery at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, noted that acute low back pain is “a symptom, not a diagnosis, and most episodes of acute low back pain without leg pain will resolve within a few weeks no matter what you do.”
“For people who have an episode of acute low back pain, we typically use anti-inflammatory medications, combined with a short, low dose course of a muscle relaxant if necessary, depending on the severity of symptoms, to help get you over the worst part of it,” Dr. Hecht said.
“We are trying to help the patient feel better in the short term and get more physically strong with therapy to try to reduce the frequency of these attacks in the future,” he added.
“But each patient is different. It’s not one-size-fits-all, and we don’t give prolonged courses of muscle relaxants because they have some side effects, like sedation,” Dr. Hecht cautioned.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Cashin, Dr. McAuley, and Dr. Hecht have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Results of a large systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials show very “low certainty evidence” that non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics provide meaningful improvement in pain intensity in patients with low back pain – and may actually increase adverse event risk.
“We found that muscle relaxants might reduce pain in the short term, but on average, the effect is probably too small to be important, and most patients wouldn’t be able to feel any difference in their pain compared to taking a placebo,” study investigator Aidan Cashin, PhD, with the Center for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, and University of New South Wales, Sydney, told this news organization. “There is also an increased risk of side effects,” he added.
The study was published online July 7 in The BMJ.
Global problem
Low back pain is a major global public health problem that burdens individuals, health care systems, and societies.
“Most people, around 80%, will have at least one episode of low back pain during their life,” Dr. Cashin noted.
Muscle relaxants, a broad class of drugs that include non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics and antispastics, are often prescribed for low back pain. In 2020 alone, prescriptions exceeded 1.3 million in England and topped 30 million in the United States.
“However, clinical practice guidelines have provided conflicting recommendations for the use of muscle relaxants to treat low back pain,” Dr. Cashin said.
To assess the efficacy and safety of muscle relaxants, the researchers conducted a detailed analysis of 31 randomized controlled trials that compared muscle relaxants with placebo, usual care, or no treatment in a total of 6,505 adults with nonspecific low back pain.
For acute low back pain, they found “very low certainty evidence” that non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics might reduce pain intensity at 2 weeks or less, but the effect is small – less than 8 points on a 0 to 100 point scale – and not clinically meaningful.
They found little to no effect of non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics on pain intensity at 3 to 13 weeks or on disability at any follow-up time points. None of the trials assessed the effect of muscle relaxants on long-term outcomes.
There was also low-certainty and very-low-certainty evidence that non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics might increase the risk of an adverse event, commonly dizziness, drowsiness, headache, and nausea (relative risk 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.0).
Better research needed
“We were surprised by the findings, as earlier research suggested that muscle relaxants did reduce pain intensity. But when we included all of the most up-to-date research, the results became much less certain,” said Dr. Cashin.
“We were also surprised to see that so much of the research wasn’t done very well, which means that we can’t be very certain in the results. There is a clear need to improve how research is done for low back pain so that we better understand whether medicines can help people or not,” Dr. Cashin said.
“We would encourage clinicians to discuss this uncertainty in the efficacy and safety of muscle relaxants with patients, sharing information about the possibility for a worthwhile benefit in pain reduction but increased risk of experiencing a nonserious adverse event, to allow them to make informed treatment decisions,” corresponding author James McAuley, PhD, University of New South Wales, said in an interview.
“We know that no matter what medicines people with low back pain are taking, they should avoid staying in bed, and they should try to be active and continue with their usual activities, including work, as much as they can. High-quality research shows that people who do this are more likely to recover faster and more completely,” said Dr. McAuley.
A symptom, not a diagnosis
Reached for comment, Andrew Hecht, MD, chief of spine surgery at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, noted that acute low back pain is “a symptom, not a diagnosis, and most episodes of acute low back pain without leg pain will resolve within a few weeks no matter what you do.”
“For people who have an episode of acute low back pain, we typically use anti-inflammatory medications, combined with a short, low dose course of a muscle relaxant if necessary, depending on the severity of symptoms, to help get you over the worst part of it,” Dr. Hecht said.
“We are trying to help the patient feel better in the short term and get more physically strong with therapy to try to reduce the frequency of these attacks in the future,” he added.
“But each patient is different. It’s not one-size-fits-all, and we don’t give prolonged courses of muscle relaxants because they have some side effects, like sedation,” Dr. Hecht cautioned.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Cashin, Dr. McAuley, and Dr. Hecht have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Results of a large systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials show very “low certainty evidence” that non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics provide meaningful improvement in pain intensity in patients with low back pain – and may actually increase adverse event risk.
“We found that muscle relaxants might reduce pain in the short term, but on average, the effect is probably too small to be important, and most patients wouldn’t be able to feel any difference in their pain compared to taking a placebo,” study investigator Aidan Cashin, PhD, with the Center for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, and University of New South Wales, Sydney, told this news organization. “There is also an increased risk of side effects,” he added.
The study was published online July 7 in The BMJ.
Global problem
Low back pain is a major global public health problem that burdens individuals, health care systems, and societies.
“Most people, around 80%, will have at least one episode of low back pain during their life,” Dr. Cashin noted.
Muscle relaxants, a broad class of drugs that include non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics and antispastics, are often prescribed for low back pain. In 2020 alone, prescriptions exceeded 1.3 million in England and topped 30 million in the United States.
“However, clinical practice guidelines have provided conflicting recommendations for the use of muscle relaxants to treat low back pain,” Dr. Cashin said.
To assess the efficacy and safety of muscle relaxants, the researchers conducted a detailed analysis of 31 randomized controlled trials that compared muscle relaxants with placebo, usual care, or no treatment in a total of 6,505 adults with nonspecific low back pain.
For acute low back pain, they found “very low certainty evidence” that non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics might reduce pain intensity at 2 weeks or less, but the effect is small – less than 8 points on a 0 to 100 point scale – and not clinically meaningful.
They found little to no effect of non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics on pain intensity at 3 to 13 weeks or on disability at any follow-up time points. None of the trials assessed the effect of muscle relaxants on long-term outcomes.
There was also low-certainty and very-low-certainty evidence that non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics might increase the risk of an adverse event, commonly dizziness, drowsiness, headache, and nausea (relative risk 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.0).
Better research needed
“We were surprised by the findings, as earlier research suggested that muscle relaxants did reduce pain intensity. But when we included all of the most up-to-date research, the results became much less certain,” said Dr. Cashin.
“We were also surprised to see that so much of the research wasn’t done very well, which means that we can’t be very certain in the results. There is a clear need to improve how research is done for low back pain so that we better understand whether medicines can help people or not,” Dr. Cashin said.
“We would encourage clinicians to discuss this uncertainty in the efficacy and safety of muscle relaxants with patients, sharing information about the possibility for a worthwhile benefit in pain reduction but increased risk of experiencing a nonserious adverse event, to allow them to make informed treatment decisions,” corresponding author James McAuley, PhD, University of New South Wales, said in an interview.
“We know that no matter what medicines people with low back pain are taking, they should avoid staying in bed, and they should try to be active and continue with their usual activities, including work, as much as they can. High-quality research shows that people who do this are more likely to recover faster and more completely,” said Dr. McAuley.
A symptom, not a diagnosis
Reached for comment, Andrew Hecht, MD, chief of spine surgery at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, noted that acute low back pain is “a symptom, not a diagnosis, and most episodes of acute low back pain without leg pain will resolve within a few weeks no matter what you do.”
“For people who have an episode of acute low back pain, we typically use anti-inflammatory medications, combined with a short, low dose course of a muscle relaxant if necessary, depending on the severity of symptoms, to help get you over the worst part of it,” Dr. Hecht said.
“We are trying to help the patient feel better in the short term and get more physically strong with therapy to try to reduce the frequency of these attacks in the future,” he added.
“But each patient is different. It’s not one-size-fits-all, and we don’t give prolonged courses of muscle relaxants because they have some side effects, like sedation,” Dr. Hecht cautioned.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Cashin, Dr. McAuley, and Dr. Hecht have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Legalization of cannabis tied to drop in opioid-related ED visits
State laws permitting recreational marijuana use have not led to an increase in opioid-related emergency department visits, as many had feared.
On the contrary, states that legalize recreational marijuana may see a short-term decrease in opioid-related ED visits in the first 6 months, after which rates may return to prelegalization levels, new research suggests.
Previous research suggests that individuals may reduce the use of opioids when they have an alternative and that cannabis can provide pain relief.
“At the same time, we often hear claims from politicians that we should not legalize cannabis because it may act as a ‘gateway drug’ that leads to use of other drugs,” lead researcher Coleman Drake, PhD, Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, told this news organization.
“Our findings indicate that cannabis legalization does not effect any increase in opioid-related ED visits, contradicting the gateway drug explanation,” Dr. Drake said.
The study was published online July 12 in Health Economics.
Significant reduction
So far, 19 states have legalized recreational cannabis, meaning that nearly half of the U.S. population lives in a state that allows recreational cannabis use.
The investigators analyzed data on opioid-related ED visits from 29 states between 2011 and 2017. Four states – California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada – legalized recreational marijuana during the study period; the remaining 25 states did not.
The four states with recreational cannabis laws experienced a 7.6% reduction in opioid-related ED visits for 6 months after the law went into effect in comparison with the states that did not legalize recreational marijuana.
“This isn’t trivial – a decline in opioid-related emergency department visits, even if only for 6 months, is a welcome public health development,” Dr. Drake said in a statement.
Not surprisingly, these effects are driven by men and adults aged 25 to 44 years. “These are populations that are more likely to use cannabis, and the reduction in opioid-related ED visits that we find is concentrated among them,” Dr. Drake told this news organization.
However, the downturn in opioid-related ED visits after making marijuana legal was only temporary.
“
Encouragingly, he said, the data show that opioid-related ED visits don’t increase above baseline after recreational marijuana laws are adopted.
“We conclude that cannabis legalization likely is not a panacea for the opioid epidemic, but there are some helpful effects,” Dr. Drake said in an interview.
The study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
State laws permitting recreational marijuana use have not led to an increase in opioid-related emergency department visits, as many had feared.
On the contrary, states that legalize recreational marijuana may see a short-term decrease in opioid-related ED visits in the first 6 months, after which rates may return to prelegalization levels, new research suggests.
Previous research suggests that individuals may reduce the use of opioids when they have an alternative and that cannabis can provide pain relief.
“At the same time, we often hear claims from politicians that we should not legalize cannabis because it may act as a ‘gateway drug’ that leads to use of other drugs,” lead researcher Coleman Drake, PhD, Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, told this news organization.
“Our findings indicate that cannabis legalization does not effect any increase in opioid-related ED visits, contradicting the gateway drug explanation,” Dr. Drake said.
The study was published online July 12 in Health Economics.
Significant reduction
So far, 19 states have legalized recreational cannabis, meaning that nearly half of the U.S. population lives in a state that allows recreational cannabis use.
The investigators analyzed data on opioid-related ED visits from 29 states between 2011 and 2017. Four states – California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada – legalized recreational marijuana during the study period; the remaining 25 states did not.
The four states with recreational cannabis laws experienced a 7.6% reduction in opioid-related ED visits for 6 months after the law went into effect in comparison with the states that did not legalize recreational marijuana.
“This isn’t trivial – a decline in opioid-related emergency department visits, even if only for 6 months, is a welcome public health development,” Dr. Drake said in a statement.
Not surprisingly, these effects are driven by men and adults aged 25 to 44 years. “These are populations that are more likely to use cannabis, and the reduction in opioid-related ED visits that we find is concentrated among them,” Dr. Drake told this news organization.
However, the downturn in opioid-related ED visits after making marijuana legal was only temporary.
“
Encouragingly, he said, the data show that opioid-related ED visits don’t increase above baseline after recreational marijuana laws are adopted.
“We conclude that cannabis legalization likely is not a panacea for the opioid epidemic, but there are some helpful effects,” Dr. Drake said in an interview.
The study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
State laws permitting recreational marijuana use have not led to an increase in opioid-related emergency department visits, as many had feared.
On the contrary, states that legalize recreational marijuana may see a short-term decrease in opioid-related ED visits in the first 6 months, after which rates may return to prelegalization levels, new research suggests.
Previous research suggests that individuals may reduce the use of opioids when they have an alternative and that cannabis can provide pain relief.
“At the same time, we often hear claims from politicians that we should not legalize cannabis because it may act as a ‘gateway drug’ that leads to use of other drugs,” lead researcher Coleman Drake, PhD, Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, told this news organization.
“Our findings indicate that cannabis legalization does not effect any increase in opioid-related ED visits, contradicting the gateway drug explanation,” Dr. Drake said.
The study was published online July 12 in Health Economics.
Significant reduction
So far, 19 states have legalized recreational cannabis, meaning that nearly half of the U.S. population lives in a state that allows recreational cannabis use.
The investigators analyzed data on opioid-related ED visits from 29 states between 2011 and 2017. Four states – California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada – legalized recreational marijuana during the study period; the remaining 25 states did not.
The four states with recreational cannabis laws experienced a 7.6% reduction in opioid-related ED visits for 6 months after the law went into effect in comparison with the states that did not legalize recreational marijuana.
“This isn’t trivial – a decline in opioid-related emergency department visits, even if only for 6 months, is a welcome public health development,” Dr. Drake said in a statement.
Not surprisingly, these effects are driven by men and adults aged 25 to 44 years. “These are populations that are more likely to use cannabis, and the reduction in opioid-related ED visits that we find is concentrated among them,” Dr. Drake told this news organization.
However, the downturn in opioid-related ED visits after making marijuana legal was only temporary.
“
Encouragingly, he said, the data show that opioid-related ED visits don’t increase above baseline after recreational marijuana laws are adopted.
“We conclude that cannabis legalization likely is not a panacea for the opioid epidemic, but there are some helpful effects,” Dr. Drake said in an interview.
The study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.