The Food and Drug Administration has approved the supplemental new drug application for esketamine nasal spray (Spravato, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) to treat depressive symptoms in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) and acute suicidal ideation or behavior.

The FDA approved esketamine nasal spray for treatment-resistant depression in March 2019, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The new indication is based on data from two identical phase 3 trials – ASPIRE I and ASPIRE II – which evaluated the efficacy and safety of the nasal spray in addition to a comprehensive standard of care in adults with MDD who had active suicidal ideation with intent.

The standard of care included initial hospitalization, a newly initiated or optimized oral antidepressant, and twice-weekly treatment visits for 4 weeks. During that time, patients received esketamine nasal spray 84 mg or placebo nasal spray.

Results from the trials showed that the active treatment significantly reduced depressive symptoms within 24 hours, with some patients starting to respond as early as 4 hours after the first dose.

“Traditional oral antidepressants need weeks or more to take effect, so the availability of a medicine that can begin providing relief within a day is potentially life changing,” Theresa Nguyen, chief program officer at Mental Health America, said in a company news release.

“The clinical trials supporting this new indication provide compelling evidence that esketamine may offer clinicians a new way to provide support to patients quickly in the midst of an urgent depressive episode and help set them on the path to remission,” Gerard Sanacora, MD, PhD, director of the Yale Depression Research Program, New Haven, Conn., and esketamine clinical trial investigator, said in the same release.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the supplemental new drug application for esketamine nasal spray (Spravato, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) to treat depressive symptoms in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) and acute suicidal ideation or behavior.

The FDA approved esketamine nasal spray for treatment-resistant depression in March 2019, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The new indication is based on data from two identical phase 3 trials – ASPIRE I and ASPIRE II – which evaluated the efficacy and safety of the nasal spray in addition to a comprehensive standard of care in adults with MDD who had active suicidal ideation with intent.

The standard of care included initial hospitalization, a newly initiated or optimized oral antidepressant, and twice-weekly treatment visits for 4 weeks. During that time, patients received esketamine nasal spray 84 mg or placebo nasal spray.

Results from the trials showed that the active treatment significantly reduced depressive symptoms within 24 hours, with some patients starting to respond as early as 4 hours after the first dose.

“Traditional oral antidepressants need weeks or more to take effect, so the availability of a medicine that can begin providing relief within a day is potentially life changing,” Theresa Nguyen, chief program officer at Mental Health America, said in a company news release.

“The clinical trials supporting this new indication provide compelling evidence that esketamine may offer clinicians a new way to provide support to patients quickly in the midst of an urgent depressive episode and help set them on the path to remission,” Gerard Sanacora, MD, PhD, director of the Yale Depression Research Program, New Haven, Conn., and esketamine clinical trial investigator, said in the same release.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the supplemental new drug application for esketamine nasal spray (Spravato, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) to treat depressive symptoms in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) and acute suicidal ideation or behavior.

The FDA approved esketamine nasal spray for treatment-resistant depression in March 2019, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The new indication is based on data from two identical phase 3 trials – ASPIRE I and ASPIRE II – which evaluated the efficacy and safety of the nasal spray in addition to a comprehensive standard of care in adults with MDD who had active suicidal ideation with intent.

The standard of care included initial hospitalization, a newly initiated or optimized oral antidepressant, and twice-weekly treatment visits for 4 weeks. During that time, patients received esketamine nasal spray 84 mg or placebo nasal spray.

Results from the trials showed that the active treatment significantly reduced depressive symptoms within 24 hours, with some patients starting to respond as early as 4 hours after the first dose.

“Traditional oral antidepressants need weeks or more to take effect, so the availability of a medicine that can begin providing relief within a day is potentially life changing,” Theresa Nguyen, chief program officer at Mental Health America, said in a company news release.

“The clinical trials supporting this new indication provide compelling evidence that esketamine may offer clinicians a new way to provide support to patients quickly in the midst of an urgent depressive episode and help set them on the path to remission,” Gerard Sanacora, MD, PhD, director of the Yale Depression Research Program, New Haven, Conn., and esketamine clinical trial investigator, said in the same release.

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

At its annual meeting, the Alzheimer’s Association announced the launch of a global study to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the brain, as well as policy recommendations to better address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term care facilities. The study will be led by researchers at the Alzheimer’s Association and the University of Texas Health, San Antonio, with participation from more than 30 countries and technical guidance from the World Health Organization.

The research will track and evaluate the short- and long-term impact of the novel coronavirus on the brain, including cognition, behavior, and function. The target sample size is 20,000-40,000 total participants.

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, announced the study’s launch during a COVID-19–focused panel discussion at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.

“To build a strong foundation for this research, we will align with existing studies, such as the Framingham Heart Study, and clinicians from around the world on how the data are going to be collected, obtained, and shared. We are going to have cross-study collaborations to understand the impact of the virus on the brain directly,” said Dr. Carrillo. “We will have some very good data to present next year at AAIC.”
 

‘Frightening’ headlines

As previously reported, mounting evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 invades the central nervous system, causing a wide range of neurologic and neuropsychiatric complications, including stroke, psychosis, altered mental state, and dementia-like syndrome. It’s likely that “dementia does not increase the risk for COVID-19, just like dementia does not increase risk for the flu. But increased age, being in a long-term care setting, and common health conditions that often accompany dementia may increase the risk,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Panel member Beth Kallmyer, MSW, vice president of care and support at the Alzheimer’s Association, spoke about the ongoing challenges long-term care facilities are facing during the pandemic. “You’ve all seen the headlines, and they’re frightening, frankly,” she said. An estimated 59,000 residents and employees of long-term care have died as a result of COVID-19, which is 42% of all U.S. deaths.

The long-term care community is being impacted at “significantly greater rates than the rest of society and yet we don’t have things in place to protect them. We also know that individuals living with dementia make up a large percentage of those that are living in long-term care,” Ms. Kallmyer said.

She noted that infection control is always a challenge in long-term care settings, but infection control during a pandemic “takes it to a whole other level.” Quarantining is hard for anyone, “but when you layer dementia on top of that we have a real challenge.” One long-term care provider told Ms. Kallmyer that “we might be saving them from COVID, but we’re losing them to social isolation and cognitive decline.”
 

New recommendations

Ms. Kallmyer outlined new policy recommendations from the Alzheimer’s Association to address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term and community-based care settings. They include:

• Testing every resident, employee, and visitor each time they leave and come back, so residents would not need to be confined to their own rooms
• Having a single portal that is easy and efficient for reporting cases
• Developing “surge activation” protocols to respond to hot spots, including the possibility of “strike teams” that go in and help during an outbreak
• Making sure all long-term care providers have full access to all needed personal protective equipment (PPE)

“Five months in and long-term care providers still don’t have adequate PPE. This is unacceptable,” said Ms. Kallmyer. “We have to be able to provide them with PPE.”

Panel member Gregory A. Jicha, MD, PhD, Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, spoke about the critical need to continue Alzheimer’s disease research during the pandemic, noting that the number of promising targets for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias has “never been higher or more comprehensive.”

Measures to ensure safety of researchers and participants include screening for symptoms (50% effective), social distancing (93% effective), minimizing exposure time (50% effective), limiting staff to 50% (50% effective), cloth/paper masks (80% effective), and testing (99.25% effective), Dr. Jicha noted.

With no safety measures in place, the risk of getting COVID-19 from a research visit is 1 in 20; when all these safety measures are combined, the risk is 1 in over 1.5 million, so “we can essentially eradicate or minimize the risks for COVID to less that of a lightning strike,” he said.

Dr. Carrillo, Ms. Kallmyer, and Dr. Jicha disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

At its annual meeting, the Alzheimer’s Association announced the launch of a global study to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the brain, as well as policy recommendations to better address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term care facilities. The study will be led by researchers at the Alzheimer’s Association and the University of Texas Health, San Antonio, with participation from more than 30 countries and technical guidance from the World Health Organization.

The research will track and evaluate the short- and long-term impact of the novel coronavirus on the brain, including cognition, behavior, and function. The target sample size is 20,000-40,000 total participants.

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, announced the study’s launch during a COVID-19–focused panel discussion at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.

“To build a strong foundation for this research, we will align with existing studies, such as the Framingham Heart Study, and clinicians from around the world on how the data are going to be collected, obtained, and shared. We are going to have cross-study collaborations to understand the impact of the virus on the brain directly,” said Dr. Carrillo. “We will have some very good data to present next year at AAIC.”
 

‘Frightening’ headlines

As previously reported, mounting evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 invades the central nervous system, causing a wide range of neurologic and neuropsychiatric complications, including stroke, psychosis, altered mental state, and dementia-like syndrome. It’s likely that “dementia does not increase the risk for COVID-19, just like dementia does not increase risk for the flu. But increased age, being in a long-term care setting, and common health conditions that often accompany dementia may increase the risk,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Panel member Beth Kallmyer, MSW, vice president of care and support at the Alzheimer’s Association, spoke about the ongoing challenges long-term care facilities are facing during the pandemic. “You’ve all seen the headlines, and they’re frightening, frankly,” she said. An estimated 59,000 residents and employees of long-term care have died as a result of COVID-19, which is 42% of all U.S. deaths.

The long-term care community is being impacted at “significantly greater rates than the rest of society and yet we don’t have things in place to protect them. We also know that individuals living with dementia make up a large percentage of those that are living in long-term care,” Ms. Kallmyer said.

She noted that infection control is always a challenge in long-term care settings, but infection control during a pandemic “takes it to a whole other level.” Quarantining is hard for anyone, “but when you layer dementia on top of that we have a real challenge.” One long-term care provider told Ms. Kallmyer that “we might be saving them from COVID, but we’re losing them to social isolation and cognitive decline.”
 

New recommendations

Ms. Kallmyer outlined new policy recommendations from the Alzheimer’s Association to address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term and community-based care settings. They include:

• Testing every resident, employee, and visitor each time they leave and come back, so residents would not need to be confined to their own rooms
• Having a single portal that is easy and efficient for reporting cases
• Developing “surge activation” protocols to respond to hot spots, including the possibility of “strike teams” that go in and help during an outbreak
• Making sure all long-term care providers have full access to all needed personal protective equipment (PPE)

“Five months in and long-term care providers still don’t have adequate PPE. This is unacceptable,” said Ms. Kallmyer. “We have to be able to provide them with PPE.”

Panel member Gregory A. Jicha, MD, PhD, Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, spoke about the critical need to continue Alzheimer’s disease research during the pandemic, noting that the number of promising targets for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias has “never been higher or more comprehensive.”

Measures to ensure safety of researchers and participants include screening for symptoms (50% effective), social distancing (93% effective), minimizing exposure time (50% effective), limiting staff to 50% (50% effective), cloth/paper masks (80% effective), and testing (99.25% effective), Dr. Jicha noted.

With no safety measures in place, the risk of getting COVID-19 from a research visit is 1 in 20; when all these safety measures are combined, the risk is 1 in over 1.5 million, so “we can essentially eradicate or minimize the risks for COVID to less that of a lightning strike,” he said.

Dr. Carrillo, Ms. Kallmyer, and Dr. Jicha disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

At its annual meeting, the Alzheimer’s Association announced the launch of a global study to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the brain, as well as policy recommendations to better address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term care facilities. The study will be led by researchers at the Alzheimer’s Association and the University of Texas Health, San Antonio, with participation from more than 30 countries and technical guidance from the World Health Organization.

The research will track and evaluate the short- and long-term impact of the novel coronavirus on the brain, including cognition, behavior, and function. The target sample size is 20,000-40,000 total participants.

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, announced the study’s launch during a COVID-19–focused panel discussion at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.

“To build a strong foundation for this research, we will align with existing studies, such as the Framingham Heart Study, and clinicians from around the world on how the data are going to be collected, obtained, and shared. We are going to have cross-study collaborations to understand the impact of the virus on the brain directly,” said Dr. Carrillo. “We will have some very good data to present next year at AAIC.”
 

‘Frightening’ headlines

As previously reported, mounting evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 invades the central nervous system, causing a wide range of neurologic and neuropsychiatric complications, including stroke, psychosis, altered mental state, and dementia-like syndrome. It’s likely that “dementia does not increase the risk for COVID-19, just like dementia does not increase risk for the flu. But increased age, being in a long-term care setting, and common health conditions that often accompany dementia may increase the risk,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Panel member Beth Kallmyer, MSW, vice president of care and support at the Alzheimer’s Association, spoke about the ongoing challenges long-term care facilities are facing during the pandemic. “You’ve all seen the headlines, and they’re frightening, frankly,” she said. An estimated 59,000 residents and employees of long-term care have died as a result of COVID-19, which is 42% of all U.S. deaths.

The long-term care community is being impacted at “significantly greater rates than the rest of society and yet we don’t have things in place to protect them. We also know that individuals living with dementia make up a large percentage of those that are living in long-term care,” Ms. Kallmyer said.

She noted that infection control is always a challenge in long-term care settings, but infection control during a pandemic “takes it to a whole other level.” Quarantining is hard for anyone, “but when you layer dementia on top of that we have a real challenge.” One long-term care provider told Ms. Kallmyer that “we might be saving them from COVID, but we’re losing them to social isolation and cognitive decline.”
 

New recommendations

Ms. Kallmyer outlined new policy recommendations from the Alzheimer’s Association to address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term and community-based care settings. They include:

• Testing every resident, employee, and visitor each time they leave and come back, so residents would not need to be confined to their own rooms
• Having a single portal that is easy and efficient for reporting cases
• Developing “surge activation” protocols to respond to hot spots, including the possibility of “strike teams” that go in and help during an outbreak
• Making sure all long-term care providers have full access to all needed personal protective equipment (PPE)

“Five months in and long-term care providers still don’t have adequate PPE. This is unacceptable,” said Ms. Kallmyer. “We have to be able to provide them with PPE.”

Panel member Gregory A. Jicha, MD, PhD, Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, spoke about the critical need to continue Alzheimer’s disease research during the pandemic, noting that the number of promising targets for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias has “never been higher or more comprehensive.”

Measures to ensure safety of researchers and participants include screening for symptoms (50% effective), social distancing (93% effective), minimizing exposure time (50% effective), limiting staff to 50% (50% effective), cloth/paper masks (80% effective), and testing (99.25% effective), Dr. Jicha noted.

With no safety measures in place, the risk of getting COVID-19 from a research visit is 1 in 20; when all these safety measures are combined, the risk is 1 in over 1.5 million, so “we can essentially eradicate or minimize the risks for COVID to less that of a lightning strike,” he said.

Dr. Carrillo, Ms. Kallmyer, and Dr. Jicha disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome (PANS), a rare acute onset of psychiatric symptoms, might be more common than initially thought, according to Kiki D. Chang, MD.

PANS is characterized by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center as a “sudden onset of obsessive-compulsive symptoms and/or severe eating restrictions, along with at least two other cognitive, behavioral, or neurological symptoms.” These symptoms can include anxiety, depression, oppositional behavior, difficulty concentrating, abnormalities in motor and sensory skills, and other somatic symptoms. The condition develops as a result of an infection that causes an autoimmune or inflammatory response in the brain, and patients tend to respond well to treatment from antibiotics, anti-inflammatory medication, and immunomodulatory therapy.

Both PANS and a subtype condition, pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with Streptococcus infections (PANDAS), are underrecognized, Dr. Chang said in a virtual meeting presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists. It is often misdiagnosed as Tourette syndrome or obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) because tics are present in about half of cases, he said, but more severe associated symptoms, such as psychosis, can be misdiagnosed as psychotic disorders or mood disorders. Currently, neither PANS nor PANDAS are officially recognized by the American Academy of Pediatrics or the DSM-5.

“We’re hoping that it is soon because it clearly exists,” Dr. Chang said at the meeting, presented by Global Academy for Medical Education. “If you’ve ever treated a child with PANS or PANDAS and you have seen antibiotics totally reverse OCD and tic-like behavior, if you’ve seen prednisone actually treat symptoms of mania or even psychosis and actually make those things better rather than worse, it’s really eye-opening and it makes a believer out of you.”

Anxiety is the most common psychiatric symptom in youth, and anxiety disorders are also common, said Dr. Chang. According to the National Comorbidity Survey: Adolescent Supplement, 2001-2004, 31.9% adolescents overall reported an anxiety disorder, and 8.3% said their anxiety disorder caused severe impairment. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the level of anxiety for children and adolescents, which can lead to other disorders, such as separation anxiety disorder, panic disorder, specific phobia, social anxiety disorder, acute stress disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, OCD, or posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychiatrists should be suspicious of any sudden onset of symptoms that overlap with PANS, said Dr. Chang, who is now in private practice in Palo Alto, Calif.

“Anxiety disorders are incredibly common. Remember that you’ve got to carefully screen for other anxiety disorders, because they’re highly comorbid,” Dr. Chang said. “You’ve got to do a full workup. If there are other things going on, you’ve got to think PANS. If it’s acute onset, you’ve really got to think [PANS], and you should do that workup or refer to someone who does.”

The prevalence of PANS and PANDAS is not known, but it may be more common than psychiatrists realize, Dr. Chang said. “I’ve been doing this for about 10 years now in the PANS and PANDAS field, and it’s very clear to me that this is something that is prevalent,” he said.

Together with Jennifer Frankovich, MD, Dr. Chang founded a clinic at the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford, and also helped to develop treatment guidelines for youth with PANS. At the clinic, patients are approximately 7.7 years old when developing the first symptoms, and are 10.7 years old when presenting for treatment. Most patients at the clinic are male (78%), and 40% are acute onset cases. Nearly all patients have symptoms of anxiety (92%), mood disorder (88%), OCD (86%), sensory/motor abnormalities (88%), irritability/aggression (82%), somatic symptoms, deterioration in school (76%), and behavioral regression (59%). More than one-third present with suicidal ideation (38%) and violence to themselves (29%), others (38%), or objects. About one-fourth have symptoms of psychosis (24%).

“These can be really sick kids,” Dr. Chang said. “We’re talking about kids yelling, screaming, having anxiety attacks, dropping on the floor, doing rituals constantly, not functioning, not able to eat because they’re afraid of things, not able to take care of their body or daily living. These were sometimes highly functional people beforehand, sometimes they weren’t, but it was still an acute change.”
 

Treatment for PANS

Treatment guidelines released by the PANS/PANDAS Consortium in 2017 recommend a first course of antistreptococcal treatment for new PANS cases. Psychiatrists should look for evidence of strep or other infection and use antibiotics to eradicate any underlying acute or residual infection.

“Very commonly, we’ll use things like azithromycin, or Augmentin, or amoxicillin, and you’ll see suddenly the OCD go away or at least diminish, the sleep return to normal, the mood come back down,” Dr. Chang said. “It’s pretty amazing when you see it.”

In other cases, ongoing treatment is needed for longer than the normal 5-day or 10-day course of antibiotics. “We’re not exactly sure how long: sometimes it’s 3 weeks, sometimes it’s 4 weeks, but you have to give it more than a week. Sometimes it’s the anti-inflammatory properties that are helping.” While concerns about haphazardly prescribing antibiotics are valid, “if you can cure this stuff on antibiotics, it’s low-hanging fruit,” Dr. Chang said.

There is evidence in the literature that prescribing antibiotics for PANS is beneficial. A randomized controlled trial published in 2017 showed that patients with PANS prescribed azithromycin for 4 weeks had greater reductions in severity of OCD, compared with placebo.

“We need more studies, but clearly, antibiotics do have the potential to help with certain kids. And certainly, in my practice, I see sometimes a slam-dunk response,” Dr. Chang said. “Unfortunately, sometimes you don’t see a slam-dunk response or you can’t find an infection. That’s when it might be more of an inflammation from some other reason. It could be a leftover infection, or it could be an anti-inflammatory situation.”

Immunomodulatory treatment for PANS includes use of NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen or naproxen sodium; steroids, such as prednisone or intravenous corticosteroids; intravenous immunoglobulin; or plasma exchange. Other therapies to consider are rituximab, mycophenolate mofetil, and cyclophosphamide.

Some psychiatric treatments may help patients with PANS. While there is no empirical evidence that psychotropics are effective in treating PANS, some SSRIs might help if patients are able to handle any adverse events. Psychotherapy and education of the family are also important for patients with PANS and their caregivers.

“Basically, [PANS] has as high a caregiver burden as having someone in the household with Alzheimer’s disease or cancer. It’s a huge burden, it’s very stressful, and the family needs support for this,” Dr. Chang said.

Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Chang reports he is a consultant for Allergan, Impel NeuroPharma, and Sunovion. He is also on the speaker’s bureau for Sunovion.

Pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome (PANS), a rare acute onset of psychiatric symptoms, might be more common than initially thought, according to Kiki D. Chang, MD.

PANS is characterized by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center as a “sudden onset of obsessive-compulsive symptoms and/or severe eating restrictions, along with at least two other cognitive, behavioral, or neurological symptoms.” These symptoms can include anxiety, depression, oppositional behavior, difficulty concentrating, abnormalities in motor and sensory skills, and other somatic symptoms. The condition develops as a result of an infection that causes an autoimmune or inflammatory response in the brain, and patients tend to respond well to treatment from antibiotics, anti-inflammatory medication, and immunomodulatory therapy.

Both PANS and a subtype condition, pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with Streptococcus infections (PANDAS), are underrecognized, Dr. Chang said in a virtual meeting presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists. It is often misdiagnosed as Tourette syndrome or obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) because tics are present in about half of cases, he said, but more severe associated symptoms, such as psychosis, can be misdiagnosed as psychotic disorders or mood disorders. Currently, neither PANS nor PANDAS are officially recognized by the American Academy of Pediatrics or the DSM-5.

“We’re hoping that it is soon because it clearly exists,” Dr. Chang said at the meeting, presented by Global Academy for Medical Education. “If you’ve ever treated a child with PANS or PANDAS and you have seen antibiotics totally reverse OCD and tic-like behavior, if you’ve seen prednisone actually treat symptoms of mania or even psychosis and actually make those things better rather than worse, it’s really eye-opening and it makes a believer out of you.”

Anxiety is the most common psychiatric symptom in youth, and anxiety disorders are also common, said Dr. Chang. According to the National Comorbidity Survey: Adolescent Supplement, 2001-2004, 31.9% adolescents overall reported an anxiety disorder, and 8.3% said their anxiety disorder caused severe impairment. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the level of anxiety for children and adolescents, which can lead to other disorders, such as separation anxiety disorder, panic disorder, specific phobia, social anxiety disorder, acute stress disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, OCD, or posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychiatrists should be suspicious of any sudden onset of symptoms that overlap with PANS, said Dr. Chang, who is now in private practice in Palo Alto, Calif.

“Anxiety disorders are incredibly common. Remember that you’ve got to carefully screen for other anxiety disorders, because they’re highly comorbid,” Dr. Chang said. “You’ve got to do a full workup. If there are other things going on, you’ve got to think PANS. If it’s acute onset, you’ve really got to think [PANS], and you should do that workup or refer to someone who does.”

The prevalence of PANS and PANDAS is not known, but it may be more common than psychiatrists realize, Dr. Chang said. “I’ve been doing this for about 10 years now in the PANS and PANDAS field, and it’s very clear to me that this is something that is prevalent,” he said.

Together with Jennifer Frankovich, MD, Dr. Chang founded a clinic at the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford, and also helped to develop treatment guidelines for youth with PANS. At the clinic, patients are approximately 7.7 years old when developing the first symptoms, and are 10.7 years old when presenting for treatment. Most patients at the clinic are male (78%), and 40% are acute onset cases. Nearly all patients have symptoms of anxiety (92%), mood disorder (88%), OCD (86%), sensory/motor abnormalities (88%), irritability/aggression (82%), somatic symptoms, deterioration in school (76%), and behavioral regression (59%). More than one-third present with suicidal ideation (38%) and violence to themselves (29%), others (38%), or objects. About one-fourth have symptoms of psychosis (24%).

“These can be really sick kids,” Dr. Chang said. “We’re talking about kids yelling, screaming, having anxiety attacks, dropping on the floor, doing rituals constantly, not functioning, not able to eat because they’re afraid of things, not able to take care of their body or daily living. These were sometimes highly functional people beforehand, sometimes they weren’t, but it was still an acute change.”
 

Treatment for PANS

Treatment guidelines released by the PANS/PANDAS Consortium in 2017 recommend a first course of antistreptococcal treatment for new PANS cases. Psychiatrists should look for evidence of strep or other infection and use antibiotics to eradicate any underlying acute or residual infection.

“Very commonly, we’ll use things like azithromycin, or Augmentin, or amoxicillin, and you’ll see suddenly the OCD go away or at least diminish, the sleep return to normal, the mood come back down,” Dr. Chang said. “It’s pretty amazing when you see it.”

In other cases, ongoing treatment is needed for longer than the normal 5-day or 10-day course of antibiotics. “We’re not exactly sure how long: sometimes it’s 3 weeks, sometimes it’s 4 weeks, but you have to give it more than a week. Sometimes it’s the anti-inflammatory properties that are helping.” While concerns about haphazardly prescribing antibiotics are valid, “if you can cure this stuff on antibiotics, it’s low-hanging fruit,” Dr. Chang said.

There is evidence in the literature that prescribing antibiotics for PANS is beneficial. A randomized controlled trial published in 2017 showed that patients with PANS prescribed azithromycin for 4 weeks had greater reductions in severity of OCD, compared with placebo.

“We need more studies, but clearly, antibiotics do have the potential to help with certain kids. And certainly, in my practice, I see sometimes a slam-dunk response,” Dr. Chang said. “Unfortunately, sometimes you don’t see a slam-dunk response or you can’t find an infection. That’s when it might be more of an inflammation from some other reason. It could be a leftover infection, or it could be an anti-inflammatory situation.”

Immunomodulatory treatment for PANS includes use of NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen or naproxen sodium; steroids, such as prednisone or intravenous corticosteroids; intravenous immunoglobulin; or plasma exchange. Other therapies to consider are rituximab, mycophenolate mofetil, and cyclophosphamide.

Some psychiatric treatments may help patients with PANS. While there is no empirical evidence that psychotropics are effective in treating PANS, some SSRIs might help if patients are able to handle any adverse events. Psychotherapy and education of the family are also important for patients with PANS and their caregivers.

“Basically, [PANS] has as high a caregiver burden as having someone in the household with Alzheimer’s disease or cancer. It’s a huge burden, it’s very stressful, and the family needs support for this,” Dr. Chang said.

Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Chang reports he is a consultant for Allergan, Impel NeuroPharma, and Sunovion. He is also on the speaker’s bureau for Sunovion.

Pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome (PANS), a rare acute onset of psychiatric symptoms, might be more common than initially thought, according to Kiki D. Chang, MD.

PANS is characterized by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center as a “sudden onset of obsessive-compulsive symptoms and/or severe eating restrictions, along with at least two other cognitive, behavioral, or neurological symptoms.” These symptoms can include anxiety, depression, oppositional behavior, difficulty concentrating, abnormalities in motor and sensory skills, and other somatic symptoms. The condition develops as a result of an infection that causes an autoimmune or inflammatory response in the brain, and patients tend to respond well to treatment from antibiotics, anti-inflammatory medication, and immunomodulatory therapy.

Both PANS and a subtype condition, pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with Streptococcus infections (PANDAS), are underrecognized, Dr. Chang said in a virtual meeting presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists. It is often misdiagnosed as Tourette syndrome or obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) because tics are present in about half of cases, he said, but more severe associated symptoms, such as psychosis, can be misdiagnosed as psychotic disorders or mood disorders. Currently, neither PANS nor PANDAS are officially recognized by the American Academy of Pediatrics or the DSM-5.

“We’re hoping that it is soon because it clearly exists,” Dr. Chang said at the meeting, presented by Global Academy for Medical Education. “If you’ve ever treated a child with PANS or PANDAS and you have seen antibiotics totally reverse OCD and tic-like behavior, if you’ve seen prednisone actually treat symptoms of mania or even psychosis and actually make those things better rather than worse, it’s really eye-opening and it makes a believer out of you.”

Anxiety is the most common psychiatric symptom in youth, and anxiety disorders are also common, said Dr. Chang. According to the National Comorbidity Survey: Adolescent Supplement, 2001-2004, 31.9% adolescents overall reported an anxiety disorder, and 8.3% said their anxiety disorder caused severe impairment. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the level of anxiety for children and adolescents, which can lead to other disorders, such as separation anxiety disorder, panic disorder, specific phobia, social anxiety disorder, acute stress disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, OCD, or posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychiatrists should be suspicious of any sudden onset of symptoms that overlap with PANS, said Dr. Chang, who is now in private practice in Palo Alto, Calif.

“Anxiety disorders are incredibly common. Remember that you’ve got to carefully screen for other anxiety disorders, because they’re highly comorbid,” Dr. Chang said. “You’ve got to do a full workup. If there are other things going on, you’ve got to think PANS. If it’s acute onset, you’ve really got to think [PANS], and you should do that workup or refer to someone who does.”

The prevalence of PANS and PANDAS is not known, but it may be more common than psychiatrists realize, Dr. Chang said. “I’ve been doing this for about 10 years now in the PANS and PANDAS field, and it’s very clear to me that this is something that is prevalent,” he said.

Together with Jennifer Frankovich, MD, Dr. Chang founded a clinic at the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford, and also helped to develop treatment guidelines for youth with PANS. At the clinic, patients are approximately 7.7 years old when developing the first symptoms, and are 10.7 years old when presenting for treatment. Most patients at the clinic are male (78%), and 40% are acute onset cases. Nearly all patients have symptoms of anxiety (92%), mood disorder (88%), OCD (86%), sensory/motor abnormalities (88%), irritability/aggression (82%), somatic symptoms, deterioration in school (76%), and behavioral regression (59%). More than one-third present with suicidal ideation (38%) and violence to themselves (29%), others (38%), or objects. About one-fourth have symptoms of psychosis (24%).

“These can be really sick kids,” Dr. Chang said. “We’re talking about kids yelling, screaming, having anxiety attacks, dropping on the floor, doing rituals constantly, not functioning, not able to eat because they’re afraid of things, not able to take care of their body or daily living. These were sometimes highly functional people beforehand, sometimes they weren’t, but it was still an acute change.”
 

Treatment for PANS

Treatment guidelines released by the PANS/PANDAS Consortium in 2017 recommend a first course of antistreptococcal treatment for new PANS cases. Psychiatrists should look for evidence of strep or other infection and use antibiotics to eradicate any underlying acute or residual infection.

“Very commonly, we’ll use things like azithromycin, or Augmentin, or amoxicillin, and you’ll see suddenly the OCD go away or at least diminish, the sleep return to normal, the mood come back down,” Dr. Chang said. “It’s pretty amazing when you see it.”

In other cases, ongoing treatment is needed for longer than the normal 5-day or 10-day course of antibiotics. “We’re not exactly sure how long: sometimes it’s 3 weeks, sometimes it’s 4 weeks, but you have to give it more than a week. Sometimes it’s the anti-inflammatory properties that are helping.” While concerns about haphazardly prescribing antibiotics are valid, “if you can cure this stuff on antibiotics, it’s low-hanging fruit,” Dr. Chang said.

There is evidence in the literature that prescribing antibiotics for PANS is beneficial. A randomized controlled trial published in 2017 showed that patients with PANS prescribed azithromycin for 4 weeks had greater reductions in severity of OCD, compared with placebo.

“We need more studies, but clearly, antibiotics do have the potential to help with certain kids. And certainly, in my practice, I see sometimes a slam-dunk response,” Dr. Chang said. “Unfortunately, sometimes you don’t see a slam-dunk response or you can’t find an infection. That’s when it might be more of an inflammation from some other reason. It could be a leftover infection, or it could be an anti-inflammatory situation.”

Immunomodulatory treatment for PANS includes use of NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen or naproxen sodium; steroids, such as prednisone or intravenous corticosteroids; intravenous immunoglobulin; or plasma exchange. Other therapies to consider are rituximab, mycophenolate mofetil, and cyclophosphamide.

Some psychiatric treatments may help patients with PANS. While there is no empirical evidence that psychotropics are effective in treating PANS, some SSRIs might help if patients are able to handle any adverse events. Psychotherapy and education of the family are also important for patients with PANS and their caregivers.

“Basically, [PANS] has as high a caregiver burden as having someone in the household with Alzheimer’s disease or cancer. It’s a huge burden, it’s very stressful, and the family needs support for this,” Dr. Chang said.

Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Chang reports he is a consultant for Allergan, Impel NeuroPharma, and Sunovion. He is also on the speaker’s bureau for Sunovion.

Middle-aged individuals who have sleep apnea or who get 9 or more hours of sleep at night have more than double the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease within about 6 years, new research suggests. A U.K. Biobank study of more than 500,000 individuals also showed that excessive daytime sleepiness was associated with increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease.

“Addressing sleep problems in middle-age may play a role in improving brain health,” said lead author Lei Gao, MD, assistant professor of anesthesia at Harvard Medical School and associate scientist in the division of sleep and circadian disorders at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.
 

Intricately linked

Sleep disturbances are common and on the rise around the world. In recent years, researchers have become increasingly aware of the intricate link between sleep health and brain health, Dr. Gao noted.

The current study included 502,538 individuals from the U.K. Biobank (mean age, 57 years) who were free from Alzheimer’s disease at baseline. They were followed for up to 12 years. The participants self-reported sleep traits, including hours of nighttime sleep, daytime sleepiness, sleep apnea diagnosis, snoring, and napping. Researchers determined Alzheimer’s disease diagnoses from hospital admissions and from death registries.

In addition to adjusting for age, sex, education, and ethnicity, the full model adjusted for socioeconomic status, body mass index, physical activity, smoking and alcohol use, cardiovascular diseases and risk factors, neurological diseases, respiratory diseases, depression/anxiety, and medication use. Over the course of a mean follow-up of 6.4 years, 932 participants developed Alzheimer’s disease.
 

Complex disorder

Compared with those who got an average of 6-9 hours of sleep per night, those getting more than 9 hours had a higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease (hazard ratio, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.56-2.67; P < .001). Having sleep apnea also raised the risk significantly (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.23-3.42; P = .006), as did daytime sleepiness (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.18-2.03; P = .001).

Dr. Gao noted that daytime sleepiness and sleep apnea remained predictive after controlling for sleep duration. “In fact, all three sleep traits remained associated with Alzheimer’s disease within the same model, suggesting some degree of independence.”

Interestingly, snoring, which is a common symptom of sleep apnea, was not linked to Alzheimer’s disease risk. The “vast majority” of people who snore don’t meet criteria for a diagnosis of sleep apnea, which was particularly true for this large cohort of relatively healthy study participants, Dr. Gao noted.

“Sleep apnea is a complex, multisystemic sleep disorder associated with obesity, high blood pressure, and often other heart problems,” he said.

He added that, as an anesthesiologist, he is particularly wary if patients have this condition, “given their increased risk for airway difficulties, adverse cardiac events, postoperative respiratory complications, and confusion or delirium, which is also associated with higher risk for eventual Alzheimer’s disease and death.”

These multisystemic factors may be driving the link to Alzheimer’s disease. “We certainly need to address this better as the population ages and obesity rates rise,” Dr. Gao said.
 

No association with napping

Unlike another of Dr. Gao’s studies that was conducted in a much older population, napping was not a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease in the current study’s younger participants. It could be that the impacts of different sleep traits on health outcome change with age, Dr. Gao said, or this could represent a limitation of using self-reported sleep measures as opposed to objective and/or quantitative measures, such as actigraphy. The reasons for napping, which differ around the world with the habit being common in certain parts, may also help explain differences in observed associations.

Although the investigators tried to control for comorbidities and medication use, there “most certainly” could be a reverse causation at work. For example, sleeping too much could be both a cause and a symptom of dementia. Dr. Gao noted that sleep disturbances often become more prevalent with dementia, and sleeping too much or complaining of daytime sleepiness may be a result of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Even if there is a reverse causation, however, the average time to Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis was over 6 years in this study. “This may be a significant window of time to intervene,” he said.

To improve sleep health, he recommends going to bed and waking at similar times every day, avoiding caffeine or alcohol close to bedtime, limiting screen time before bed, dimming lights, and reducing noise.

It’s also important to have sleep apnea treated. “While more studies are needed, it’s generally believed that addressing the pauses in breathing, the apnea episodes, will help reduce cardiovascular health risks such as obesity, high blood pressure and heart failure. All are known to be strongly linked to dementia risk,” Dr. Gao said.

Results from an assessment of 100,000 actigraphy records from a subset of the same population are expected soon and will add objective confirmation of these self-reported results, he added.
 

Unique, powerful

Commenting on the findings, Alberto Ramos, MD, associate professor of clinical neurology and research director of the sleep medicine program at the University of Miami, called the study “unique” and “powerful” because of its prospective design and large sample size.

“Another strength of the study was that it included a population-based sample as opposed to one from a memory or sleep clinic where people already have symptoms or are already sick,” said Dr. Ramos, who was not involved with the research.

In addition, while most studies that have linked sleep disturbances with dementia risk have been in older adults, this study’s population was middle-aged to start out, he noted.

Dr. Gao and Dr. Ramos reported no relevant financial relationships. Although Dr. Gao’s lab receives funding from the National Institutes of Health, the BrightFocus Foundation, the University of Manchester, the Medical Biodynamics Program, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and the Broad Institute, the study itself does not have its own specific funding.

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

Middle-aged individuals who have sleep apnea or who get 9 or more hours of sleep at night have more than double the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease within about 6 years, new research suggests. A U.K. Biobank study of more than 500,000 individuals also showed that excessive daytime sleepiness was associated with increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease.

“Addressing sleep problems in middle-age may play a role in improving brain health,” said lead author Lei Gao, MD, assistant professor of anesthesia at Harvard Medical School and associate scientist in the division of sleep and circadian disorders at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.
 

Intricately linked

Sleep disturbances are common and on the rise around the world. In recent years, researchers have become increasingly aware of the intricate link between sleep health and brain health, Dr. Gao noted.

The current study included 502,538 individuals from the U.K. Biobank (mean age, 57 years) who were free from Alzheimer’s disease at baseline. They were followed for up to 12 years. The participants self-reported sleep traits, including hours of nighttime sleep, daytime sleepiness, sleep apnea diagnosis, snoring, and napping. Researchers determined Alzheimer’s disease diagnoses from hospital admissions and from death registries.

In addition to adjusting for age, sex, education, and ethnicity, the full model adjusted for socioeconomic status, body mass index, physical activity, smoking and alcohol use, cardiovascular diseases and risk factors, neurological diseases, respiratory diseases, depression/anxiety, and medication use. Over the course of a mean follow-up of 6.4 years, 932 participants developed Alzheimer’s disease.
 

Complex disorder

Compared with those who got an average of 6-9 hours of sleep per night, those getting more than 9 hours had a higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease (hazard ratio, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.56-2.67; P < .001). Having sleep apnea also raised the risk significantly (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.23-3.42; P = .006), as did daytime sleepiness (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.18-2.03; P = .001).

Dr. Gao noted that daytime sleepiness and sleep apnea remained predictive after controlling for sleep duration. “In fact, all three sleep traits remained associated with Alzheimer’s disease within the same model, suggesting some degree of independence.”

Interestingly, snoring, which is a common symptom of sleep apnea, was not linked to Alzheimer’s disease risk. The “vast majority” of people who snore don’t meet criteria for a diagnosis of sleep apnea, which was particularly true for this large cohort of relatively healthy study participants, Dr. Gao noted.

“Sleep apnea is a complex, multisystemic sleep disorder associated with obesity, high blood pressure, and often other heart problems,” he said.

He added that, as an anesthesiologist, he is particularly wary if patients have this condition, “given their increased risk for airway difficulties, adverse cardiac events, postoperative respiratory complications, and confusion or delirium, which is also associated with higher risk for eventual Alzheimer’s disease and death.”

These multisystemic factors may be driving the link to Alzheimer’s disease. “We certainly need to address this better as the population ages and obesity rates rise,” Dr. Gao said.
 

No association with napping

Unlike another of Dr. Gao’s studies that was conducted in a much older population, napping was not a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease in the current study’s younger participants. It could be that the impacts of different sleep traits on health outcome change with age, Dr. Gao said, or this could represent a limitation of using self-reported sleep measures as opposed to objective and/or quantitative measures, such as actigraphy. The reasons for napping, which differ around the world with the habit being common in certain parts, may also help explain differences in observed associations.

Although the investigators tried to control for comorbidities and medication use, there “most certainly” could be a reverse causation at work. For example, sleeping too much could be both a cause and a symptom of dementia. Dr. Gao noted that sleep disturbances often become more prevalent with dementia, and sleeping too much or complaining of daytime sleepiness may be a result of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Even if there is a reverse causation, however, the average time to Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis was over 6 years in this study. “This may be a significant window of time to intervene,” he said.

To improve sleep health, he recommends going to bed and waking at similar times every day, avoiding caffeine or alcohol close to bedtime, limiting screen time before bed, dimming lights, and reducing noise.

It’s also important to have sleep apnea treated. “While more studies are needed, it’s generally believed that addressing the pauses in breathing, the apnea episodes, will help reduce cardiovascular health risks such as obesity, high blood pressure and heart failure. All are known to be strongly linked to dementia risk,” Dr. Gao said.

Results from an assessment of 100,000 actigraphy records from a subset of the same population are expected soon and will add objective confirmation of these self-reported results, he added.
 

Unique, powerful

Commenting on the findings, Alberto Ramos, MD, associate professor of clinical neurology and research director of the sleep medicine program at the University of Miami, called the study “unique” and “powerful” because of its prospective design and large sample size.

“Another strength of the study was that it included a population-based sample as opposed to one from a memory or sleep clinic where people already have symptoms or are already sick,” said Dr. Ramos, who was not involved with the research.

In addition, while most studies that have linked sleep disturbances with dementia risk have been in older adults, this study’s population was middle-aged to start out, he noted.

Dr. Gao and Dr. Ramos reported no relevant financial relationships. Although Dr. Gao’s lab receives funding from the National Institutes of Health, the BrightFocus Foundation, the University of Manchester, the Medical Biodynamics Program, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and the Broad Institute, the study itself does not have its own specific funding.

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

Middle-aged individuals who have sleep apnea or who get 9 or more hours of sleep at night have more than double the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease within about 6 years, new research suggests. A U.K. Biobank study of more than 500,000 individuals also showed that excessive daytime sleepiness was associated with increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease.

“Addressing sleep problems in middle-age may play a role in improving brain health,” said lead author Lei Gao, MD, assistant professor of anesthesia at Harvard Medical School and associate scientist in the division of sleep and circadian disorders at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.
 

Intricately linked

Sleep disturbances are common and on the rise around the world. In recent years, researchers have become increasingly aware of the intricate link between sleep health and brain health, Dr. Gao noted.

The current study included 502,538 individuals from the U.K. Biobank (mean age, 57 years) who were free from Alzheimer’s disease at baseline. They were followed for up to 12 years. The participants self-reported sleep traits, including hours of nighttime sleep, daytime sleepiness, sleep apnea diagnosis, snoring, and napping. Researchers determined Alzheimer’s disease diagnoses from hospital admissions and from death registries.

In addition to adjusting for age, sex, education, and ethnicity, the full model adjusted for socioeconomic status, body mass index, physical activity, smoking and alcohol use, cardiovascular diseases and risk factors, neurological diseases, respiratory diseases, depression/anxiety, and medication use. Over the course of a mean follow-up of 6.4 years, 932 participants developed Alzheimer’s disease.
 

Complex disorder

Compared with those who got an average of 6-9 hours of sleep per night, those getting more than 9 hours had a higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease (hazard ratio, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.56-2.67; P < .001). Having sleep apnea also raised the risk significantly (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.23-3.42; P = .006), as did daytime sleepiness (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.18-2.03; P = .001).

Dr. Gao noted that daytime sleepiness and sleep apnea remained predictive after controlling for sleep duration. “In fact, all three sleep traits remained associated with Alzheimer’s disease within the same model, suggesting some degree of independence.”

Interestingly, snoring, which is a common symptom of sleep apnea, was not linked to Alzheimer’s disease risk. The “vast majority” of people who snore don’t meet criteria for a diagnosis of sleep apnea, which was particularly true for this large cohort of relatively healthy study participants, Dr. Gao noted.

“Sleep apnea is a complex, multisystemic sleep disorder associated with obesity, high blood pressure, and often other heart problems,” he said.

He added that, as an anesthesiologist, he is particularly wary if patients have this condition, “given their increased risk for airway difficulties, adverse cardiac events, postoperative respiratory complications, and confusion or delirium, which is also associated with higher risk for eventual Alzheimer’s disease and death.”

These multisystemic factors may be driving the link to Alzheimer’s disease. “We certainly need to address this better as the population ages and obesity rates rise,” Dr. Gao said.
 

No association with napping

Unlike another of Dr. Gao’s studies that was conducted in a much older population, napping was not a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease in the current study’s younger participants. It could be that the impacts of different sleep traits on health outcome change with age, Dr. Gao said, or this could represent a limitation of using self-reported sleep measures as opposed to objective and/or quantitative measures, such as actigraphy. The reasons for napping, which differ around the world with the habit being common in certain parts, may also help explain differences in observed associations.

Although the investigators tried to control for comorbidities and medication use, there “most certainly” could be a reverse causation at work. For example, sleeping too much could be both a cause and a symptom of dementia. Dr. Gao noted that sleep disturbances often become more prevalent with dementia, and sleeping too much or complaining of daytime sleepiness may be a result of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Even if there is a reverse causation, however, the average time to Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis was over 6 years in this study. “This may be a significant window of time to intervene,” he said.

To improve sleep health, he recommends going to bed and waking at similar times every day, avoiding caffeine or alcohol close to bedtime, limiting screen time before bed, dimming lights, and reducing noise.

It’s also important to have sleep apnea treated. “While more studies are needed, it’s generally believed that addressing the pauses in breathing, the apnea episodes, will help reduce cardiovascular health risks such as obesity, high blood pressure and heart failure. All are known to be strongly linked to dementia risk,” Dr. Gao said.

Results from an assessment of 100,000 actigraphy records from a subset of the same population are expected soon and will add objective confirmation of these self-reported results, he added.
 

Unique, powerful

Commenting on the findings, Alberto Ramos, MD, associate professor of clinical neurology and research director of the sleep medicine program at the University of Miami, called the study “unique” and “powerful” because of its prospective design and large sample size.

“Another strength of the study was that it included a population-based sample as opposed to one from a memory or sleep clinic where people already have symptoms or are already sick,” said Dr. Ramos, who was not involved with the research.

In addition, while most studies that have linked sleep disturbances with dementia risk have been in older adults, this study’s population was middle-aged to start out, he noted.

Dr. Gao and Dr. Ramos reported no relevant financial relationships. Although Dr. Gao’s lab receives funding from the National Institutes of Health, the BrightFocus Foundation, the University of Manchester, the Medical Biodynamics Program, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and the Broad Institute, the study itself does not have its own specific funding.

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

Adding pegvorhyaluronidase alfa (PEGPH20) to treatment with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine (AG) did not improve survival in adults with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in a phase 3 trial.

The median overall survival was 11.2 months with PEGPH20 plus AG and 11.5 months with placebo plus AG. The median progression-free survival was 7.1 months in both treatment arms.

Eric Van Cutsem, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Gasthuisberg Leuven and KU Leuven in Belgium, and colleagues reported these findings in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The authors explained that, in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, “a dense fibrotic stroma (i.e., desmoplasia) surrounds the growing tumor mass, which can compress tumor vasculature within the microenvironment and increase interstitial pressure, impeding perfusion and delivery of systemic agents.”

PEGPH20 is an enzyme that degrades hyaluronan, a major component of the stroma. The researchers’ hypothesis was that PEGPH20 would weaken the stromal barrier and facilitate greater penetration of the AG combination into the tumor.

However, PEGPH20 failed to improve upon results with AG in this trial, which led Halozyme Therapeutics to halt further development of PEGPH20.

The negative findings in this trial, as well as the failure of other stroma-remodeling agents in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, “collectively indicates the need to reevaluate this treatment strategy,” Dr. Van Cutsem and colleagues wrote.

“More preclinical and retrospective analyses are needed to better understand the failures of tumor stroma remodeling and whether and how it should continue to be pursued,” the authors added.
 

Phase 3 results

The intent-to-treat analysis included 492 adults with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. All patients expressed high hyaluronan levels, as defined by at least 50% hyaluronan staining in the extracellular matrix from tumor samples.

There were 165 subjects randomized to receive placebo plus AG and 327 randomized to receive PEGPH20 plus AG. Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms.

The overall response rate was 47% with PEGPH20-AG and 36% with placebo-AG. The median duration of response was 6.1 months and 7.4 months, respectively.

The overall survival analysis was performed after 330 deaths. There were no significant differences between the PEGPH20 and placebo arms with regard to median overall survival (11.2 months and 11.5 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.00, P = .97) or progression-free survival (7.1 months in both arms; HR, 0.97).

All patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (AE). The most common AEs of any grade that were more frequent in the PEGPH20 arm than in the placebo arm (≥ 2%) were peripheral edema (61.8% vs. 33.3%), muscle spasms (51.4% vs. 9.6%), myalgia (28.9% vs. 14.7%), and arthralgia (19.4% vs. 11.5%).

Grade 3 or higher AEs that were more common with PEGPH20 (≥ 2%) included fatigue (16.0% vs. 9.6%), muscle spasms (6.5% vs. 0.6%), and hyponatremia (8.0% vs. 3.8%).

“[T]here were no apparent safety signals that affected study treatment exposure or survival,” the investigators noted.
 

Two failed trials

“We now have two failed clinical trials for PEGPH20. Could it be perhaps that our theory of targeting the desmoplastic response is simply not enough?” Nausheen Hakim, DO, of Northwell Health Cancer Institute in New York, and colleagues wrote in a commentary shortly after Halozyme released topline results from the phase 3 trial (Pancreas [Fairfax]. 2019;3[1]:e1-e4. doi: 10.17140/POJ-3-e010).

The second study the editorialists were referring to is a phase 1b/2 trial of PEGPH20 added to fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (J Clin Oncol. 2019 May 1;37[13]:1062-9).

In this trial, the median overall survival was worse with PEGPH20 than without it, at 7.7 months and 14.4 months, respectively. The difference was probably due to the increased toxicity with the PEGPH20 regimen, which led to subjects receiving only half the number of chemotherapy cycles as the control group, Dr. Hakim and colleagues wrote.

“Perhaps it is not solely the desmoplastic reaction that is the cause of chemoresistance of pancreatic cells but additional intrinsic factors at play,” the editorialists wrote. “It may indeed be a combination of stroma-modifying agents as well as other strategies to overcome chemoresistance to better fight pancreatic cancer. Further studies in molecular biology to better characterize the complex interaction between the microenvironment and cancer cells are warranted.”

The phase 3 study was funded by Halozyme Therapeutics. The authors disclosed relationships with Halozyme and many other companies. The editorialists disclosed no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Van Cutsem E et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jul 24;JCO2000590. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.00590.

Adding pegvorhyaluronidase alfa (PEGPH20) to treatment with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine (AG) did not improve survival in adults with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in a phase 3 trial.

The median overall survival was 11.2 months with PEGPH20 plus AG and 11.5 months with placebo plus AG. The median progression-free survival was 7.1 months in both treatment arms.

Eric Van Cutsem, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Gasthuisberg Leuven and KU Leuven in Belgium, and colleagues reported these findings in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The authors explained that, in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, “a dense fibrotic stroma (i.e., desmoplasia) surrounds the growing tumor mass, which can compress tumor vasculature within the microenvironment and increase interstitial pressure, impeding perfusion and delivery of systemic agents.”

PEGPH20 is an enzyme that degrades hyaluronan, a major component of the stroma. The researchers’ hypothesis was that PEGPH20 would weaken the stromal barrier and facilitate greater penetration of the AG combination into the tumor.

However, PEGPH20 failed to improve upon results with AG in this trial, which led Halozyme Therapeutics to halt further development of PEGPH20.

The negative findings in this trial, as well as the failure of other stroma-remodeling agents in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, “collectively indicates the need to reevaluate this treatment strategy,” Dr. Van Cutsem and colleagues wrote.

“More preclinical and retrospective analyses are needed to better understand the failures of tumor stroma remodeling and whether and how it should continue to be pursued,” the authors added.
 

Phase 3 results

The intent-to-treat analysis included 492 adults with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. All patients expressed high hyaluronan levels, as defined by at least 50% hyaluronan staining in the extracellular matrix from tumor samples.

There were 165 subjects randomized to receive placebo plus AG and 327 randomized to receive PEGPH20 plus AG. Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms.

The overall response rate was 47% with PEGPH20-AG and 36% with placebo-AG. The median duration of response was 6.1 months and 7.4 months, respectively.

The overall survival analysis was performed after 330 deaths. There were no significant differences between the PEGPH20 and placebo arms with regard to median overall survival (11.2 months and 11.5 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.00, P = .97) or progression-free survival (7.1 months in both arms; HR, 0.97).

All patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (AE). The most common AEs of any grade that were more frequent in the PEGPH20 arm than in the placebo arm (≥ 2%) were peripheral edema (61.8% vs. 33.3%), muscle spasms (51.4% vs. 9.6%), myalgia (28.9% vs. 14.7%), and arthralgia (19.4% vs. 11.5%).

Grade 3 or higher AEs that were more common with PEGPH20 (≥ 2%) included fatigue (16.0% vs. 9.6%), muscle spasms (6.5% vs. 0.6%), and hyponatremia (8.0% vs. 3.8%).

“[T]here were no apparent safety signals that affected study treatment exposure or survival,” the investigators noted.
 

Two failed trials

“We now have two failed clinical trials for PEGPH20. Could it be perhaps that our theory of targeting the desmoplastic response is simply not enough?” Nausheen Hakim, DO, of Northwell Health Cancer Institute in New York, and colleagues wrote in a commentary shortly after Halozyme released topline results from the phase 3 trial (Pancreas [Fairfax]. 2019;3[1]:e1-e4. doi: 10.17140/POJ-3-e010).

The second study the editorialists were referring to is a phase 1b/2 trial of PEGPH20 added to fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (J Clin Oncol. 2019 May 1;37[13]:1062-9).

In this trial, the median overall survival was worse with PEGPH20 than without it, at 7.7 months and 14.4 months, respectively. The difference was probably due to the increased toxicity with the PEGPH20 regimen, which led to subjects receiving only half the number of chemotherapy cycles as the control group, Dr. Hakim and colleagues wrote.

“Perhaps it is not solely the desmoplastic reaction that is the cause of chemoresistance of pancreatic cells but additional intrinsic factors at play,” the editorialists wrote. “It may indeed be a combination of stroma-modifying agents as well as other strategies to overcome chemoresistance to better fight pancreatic cancer. Further studies in molecular biology to better characterize the complex interaction between the microenvironment and cancer cells are warranted.”

The phase 3 study was funded by Halozyme Therapeutics. The authors disclosed relationships with Halozyme and many other companies. The editorialists disclosed no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Van Cutsem E et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jul 24;JCO2000590. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.00590.

Adding pegvorhyaluronidase alfa (PEGPH20) to treatment with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine (AG) did not improve survival in adults with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in a phase 3 trial.

The median overall survival was 11.2 months with PEGPH20 plus AG and 11.5 months with placebo plus AG. The median progression-free survival was 7.1 months in both treatment arms.

Eric Van Cutsem, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Gasthuisberg Leuven and KU Leuven in Belgium, and colleagues reported these findings in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The authors explained that, in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, “a dense fibrotic stroma (i.e., desmoplasia) surrounds the growing tumor mass, which can compress tumor vasculature within the microenvironment and increase interstitial pressure, impeding perfusion and delivery of systemic agents.”

PEGPH20 is an enzyme that degrades hyaluronan, a major component of the stroma. The researchers’ hypothesis was that PEGPH20 would weaken the stromal barrier and facilitate greater penetration of the AG combination into the tumor.

However, PEGPH20 failed to improve upon results with AG in this trial, which led Halozyme Therapeutics to halt further development of PEGPH20.

The negative findings in this trial, as well as the failure of other stroma-remodeling agents in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, “collectively indicates the need to reevaluate this treatment strategy,” Dr. Van Cutsem and colleagues wrote.

“More preclinical and retrospective analyses are needed to better understand the failures of tumor stroma remodeling and whether and how it should continue to be pursued,” the authors added.
 

Phase 3 results

The intent-to-treat analysis included 492 adults with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. All patients expressed high hyaluronan levels, as defined by at least 50% hyaluronan staining in the extracellular matrix from tumor samples.

There were 165 subjects randomized to receive placebo plus AG and 327 randomized to receive PEGPH20 plus AG. Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms.

The overall response rate was 47% with PEGPH20-AG and 36% with placebo-AG. The median duration of response was 6.1 months and 7.4 months, respectively.

The overall survival analysis was performed after 330 deaths. There were no significant differences between the PEGPH20 and placebo arms with regard to median overall survival (11.2 months and 11.5 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.00, P = .97) or progression-free survival (7.1 months in both arms; HR, 0.97).

All patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (AE). The most common AEs of any grade that were more frequent in the PEGPH20 arm than in the placebo arm (≥ 2%) were peripheral edema (61.8% vs. 33.3%), muscle spasms (51.4% vs. 9.6%), myalgia (28.9% vs. 14.7%), and arthralgia (19.4% vs. 11.5%).

Grade 3 or higher AEs that were more common with PEGPH20 (≥ 2%) included fatigue (16.0% vs. 9.6%), muscle spasms (6.5% vs. 0.6%), and hyponatremia (8.0% vs. 3.8%).

“[T]here were no apparent safety signals that affected study treatment exposure or survival,” the investigators noted.
 

Two failed trials

“We now have two failed clinical trials for PEGPH20. Could it be perhaps that our theory of targeting the desmoplastic response is simply not enough?” Nausheen Hakim, DO, of Northwell Health Cancer Institute in New York, and colleagues wrote in a commentary shortly after Halozyme released topline results from the phase 3 trial (Pancreas [Fairfax]. 2019;3[1]:e1-e4. doi: 10.17140/POJ-3-e010).

The second study the editorialists were referring to is a phase 1b/2 trial of PEGPH20 added to fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (J Clin Oncol. 2019 May 1;37[13]:1062-9).

In this trial, the median overall survival was worse with PEGPH20 than without it, at 7.7 months and 14.4 months, respectively. The difference was probably due to the increased toxicity with the PEGPH20 regimen, which led to subjects receiving only half the number of chemotherapy cycles as the control group, Dr. Hakim and colleagues wrote.

“Perhaps it is not solely the desmoplastic reaction that is the cause of chemoresistance of pancreatic cells but additional intrinsic factors at play,” the editorialists wrote. “It may indeed be a combination of stroma-modifying agents as well as other strategies to overcome chemoresistance to better fight pancreatic cancer. Further studies in molecular biology to better characterize the complex interaction between the microenvironment and cancer cells are warranted.”

The phase 3 study was funded by Halozyme Therapeutics. The authors disclosed relationships with Halozyme and many other companies. The editorialists disclosed no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Van Cutsem E et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jul 24;JCO2000590. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.00590.

The COVID-19 pandemic is taking a particularly severe financial toll on people with diabetes, new research from the United States suggests.

Results from a national online survey of 5,000 people with diabetes conducted between June 26 and July 1, 2020, were posted July 29 on the American Diabetes Association website.

The survey, conducted by the diabetes research company dQ&A in association with the ADA, revealed that Americans with diabetes are experiencing extreme financial pressures, leading to medication and supply rationing.

A high proportion of respondents had either lost income or are working in jobs that place them at risk for catching the novel coronavirus.

“These new numbers show the urgency needed to adopt measures to protect and assist the millions of people with diabetes who are suffering through this pandemic,” Tracey D. Brown, CEO of the ADA, said in a statement.

She called for states to extend health care coverage to people who have lost their jobs, for the eradication of insulin copays during the pandemic, and for increased COVID-19 testing capacity in high-risk communities.

“If these actions aren’t taken immediately, we will continue to see devastating impacts and outcomes for millions of vulnerable Americans,” Ms. Brown stressed.
 

COVID-19 has worsened financial pressures for people with diabetes

In the survey, 24% of respondents reported having used savings, loans, or stimulus check money to pay for diabetes care in the past 3 months. Among those who have lost income, half are using savings or stimulus money.

A quarter of respondents said they have been self-rationing supplies to cut costs.

Extrapolating to the entire U.S. population with diabetes, dQ&A estimated that roughly 650,000 are skipping insulin doses or taking less than prescribed, and 3 million are skipping blood glucose tests.

In June, the unemployment rate for people with diabetes was 18%, higher than the national rate of 12%.

Also higher is the proportion of those working prior to the pandemic who have since lost income: 33%, compared with 29% for the general population.

Among those who are self-employed, 7 in 10 of those with diabetes have lost some or all of their income.
 

Many with diabetes who are employed are vulnerable to exposure

Of those who remain employed, half said they can’t work from home.

Of those, 60% work in essential industries, with 22% in health care. A large majority, 90%, reported lack of social distancing at work and nearly a third work in places that don’t require masks.

“People with diabetes are helping to provide the services we all depend on during this pandemic, even as it puts their own well-being at risk,” the report said.

It concluded that “these numbers represent a conservative estimate of the pandemic’s impact. They are generated from an ongoing online study of the diabetes population amongst people who have opted in to participate.”

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

The COVID-19 pandemic is taking a particularly severe financial toll on people with diabetes, new research from the United States suggests.

Results from a national online survey of 5,000 people with diabetes conducted between June 26 and July 1, 2020, were posted July 29 on the American Diabetes Association website.

The survey, conducted by the diabetes research company dQ&A in association with the ADA, revealed that Americans with diabetes are experiencing extreme financial pressures, leading to medication and supply rationing.

A high proportion of respondents had either lost income or are working in jobs that place them at risk for catching the novel coronavirus.

“These new numbers show the urgency needed to adopt measures to protect and assist the millions of people with diabetes who are suffering through this pandemic,” Tracey D. Brown, CEO of the ADA, said in a statement.

She called for states to extend health care coverage to people who have lost their jobs, for the eradication of insulin copays during the pandemic, and for increased COVID-19 testing capacity in high-risk communities.

“If these actions aren’t taken immediately, we will continue to see devastating impacts and outcomes for millions of vulnerable Americans,” Ms. Brown stressed.
 

COVID-19 has worsened financial pressures for people with diabetes

In the survey, 24% of respondents reported having used savings, loans, or stimulus check money to pay for diabetes care in the past 3 months. Among those who have lost income, half are using savings or stimulus money.

A quarter of respondents said they have been self-rationing supplies to cut costs.

Extrapolating to the entire U.S. population with diabetes, dQ&A estimated that roughly 650,000 are skipping insulin doses or taking less than prescribed, and 3 million are skipping blood glucose tests.

In June, the unemployment rate for people with diabetes was 18%, higher than the national rate of 12%.

Also higher is the proportion of those working prior to the pandemic who have since lost income: 33%, compared with 29% for the general population.

Among those who are self-employed, 7 in 10 of those with diabetes have lost some or all of their income.
 

Many with diabetes who are employed are vulnerable to exposure

Of those who remain employed, half said they can’t work from home.

Of those, 60% work in essential industries, with 22% in health care. A large majority, 90%, reported lack of social distancing at work and nearly a third work in places that don’t require masks.

“People with diabetes are helping to provide the services we all depend on during this pandemic, even as it puts their own well-being at risk,” the report said.

It concluded that “these numbers represent a conservative estimate of the pandemic’s impact. They are generated from an ongoing online study of the diabetes population amongst people who have opted in to participate.”

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

The COVID-19 pandemic is taking a particularly severe financial toll on people with diabetes, new research from the United States suggests.

Results from a national online survey of 5,000 people with diabetes conducted between June 26 and July 1, 2020, were posted July 29 on the American Diabetes Association website.

The survey, conducted by the diabetes research company dQ&A in association with the ADA, revealed that Americans with diabetes are experiencing extreme financial pressures, leading to medication and supply rationing.

A high proportion of respondents had either lost income or are working in jobs that place them at risk for catching the novel coronavirus.

“These new numbers show the urgency needed to adopt measures to protect and assist the millions of people with diabetes who are suffering through this pandemic,” Tracey D. Brown, CEO of the ADA, said in a statement.

She called for states to extend health care coverage to people who have lost their jobs, for the eradication of insulin copays during the pandemic, and for increased COVID-19 testing capacity in high-risk communities.

“If these actions aren’t taken immediately, we will continue to see devastating impacts and outcomes for millions of vulnerable Americans,” Ms. Brown stressed.
 

COVID-19 has worsened financial pressures for people with diabetes

In the survey, 24% of respondents reported having used savings, loans, or stimulus check money to pay for diabetes care in the past 3 months. Among those who have lost income, half are using savings or stimulus money.

A quarter of respondents said they have been self-rationing supplies to cut costs.

Extrapolating to the entire U.S. population with diabetes, dQ&A estimated that roughly 650,000 are skipping insulin doses or taking less than prescribed, and 3 million are skipping blood glucose tests.

In June, the unemployment rate for people with diabetes was 18%, higher than the national rate of 12%.

Also higher is the proportion of those working prior to the pandemic who have since lost income: 33%, compared with 29% for the general population.

Among those who are self-employed, 7 in 10 of those with diabetes have lost some or all of their income.
 

Many with diabetes who are employed are vulnerable to exposure

Of those who remain employed, half said they can’t work from home.

Of those, 60% work in essential industries, with 22% in health care. A large majority, 90%, reported lack of social distancing at work and nearly a third work in places that don’t require masks.

“People with diabetes are helping to provide the services we all depend on during this pandemic, even as it puts their own well-being at risk,” the report said.

It concluded that “these numbers represent a conservative estimate of the pandemic’s impact. They are generated from an ongoing online study of the diabetes population amongst people who have opted in to participate.”

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

Background: Antiplatelet agents reduce the risk of major vascular events in patient with established vaso-occlusive disease, but they may increase the risk of ICH. Patients with prior ICH are at risk for both vaso-occlusive and hemorrhagic events. Clarification of the relative risk and benefit of antiplatelet agent use in this clinical scenario would serve to guide therapy.

Hospitalists should be aware that these data suggest that the risk assessment for resumption of antiplatelet agents should not be affected by a history of nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage when weighed against the benefit of these medications in patients with occlusive vascular disease.

Bottom line: Resumption of antiplatelet agents following intracerebral hemorrhage showed no evidence of increased risk of recurrent intracerebral hemorrhage or major hemorrhagic events.

Citation: RESTART Collaboration. Effects of antiplatelet therapy after stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage (RESTART): A randomized, open-label trial. Lancet. 2019. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30840-2.

Dr. Deitelzweig is system department chair of hospital medicine at Ochsner Health System, New Orleans.

Background: Antiplatelet agents reduce the risk of major vascular events in patient with established vaso-occlusive disease, but they may increase the risk of ICH. Patients with prior ICH are at risk for both vaso-occlusive and hemorrhagic events. Clarification of the relative risk and benefit of antiplatelet agent use in this clinical scenario would serve to guide therapy.

Hospitalists should be aware that these data suggest that the risk assessment for resumption of antiplatelet agents should not be affected by a history of nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage when weighed against the benefit of these medications in patients with occlusive vascular disease.

Bottom line: Resumption of antiplatelet agents following intracerebral hemorrhage showed no evidence of increased risk of recurrent intracerebral hemorrhage or major hemorrhagic events.

Citation: RESTART Collaboration. Effects of antiplatelet therapy after stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage (RESTART): A randomized, open-label trial. Lancet. 2019. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30840-2.

Dr. Deitelzweig is system department chair of hospital medicine at Ochsner Health System, New Orleans.

Background: Antiplatelet agents reduce the risk of major vascular events in patient with established vaso-occlusive disease, but they may increase the risk of ICH. Patients with prior ICH are at risk for both vaso-occlusive and hemorrhagic events. Clarification of the relative risk and benefit of antiplatelet agent use in this clinical scenario would serve to guide therapy.

Hospitalists should be aware that these data suggest that the risk assessment for resumption of antiplatelet agents should not be affected by a history of nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage when weighed against the benefit of these medications in patients with occlusive vascular disease.

Bottom line: Resumption of antiplatelet agents following intracerebral hemorrhage showed no evidence of increased risk of recurrent intracerebral hemorrhage or major hemorrhagic events.

Citation: RESTART Collaboration. Effects of antiplatelet therapy after stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage (RESTART): A randomized, open-label trial. Lancet. 2019. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30840-2.

Dr. Deitelzweig is system department chair of hospital medicine at Ochsner Health System, New Orleans.

Infection increases mortality risk among patients with dementia, new research suggests. A large, registry-based cohort study showed that those with dementia had a greater than sixfold increased risk of dying after acquiring any infection than those without dementia or an infection.

“This is the first study to our knowledge to show that increased mortality is observed across all infection types in people with dementia and that increased mortality is seen both short and long term,” said coinvestigator Janet Janbek, a PhD student at the Danish Dementia Research Center, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Large Danish cohort

The investigators analyzed data from Danish national health registries for nearly 1.5 million individuals aged 65 years and older who had visited the hospital with an infection. There were 575,260 deaths during more than 12.7 million person-years of follow-up.

Patients with dementia who also had a hospital visit for infection died at a 6.5 times higher rate than participants without dementia or an infection. Those with either dementia alone or infection-related contacts alone had a threefold increased rate of death.

The mortality rate was highest within the first 30 days following the hospital visit for infection. However, the rate remained elevated for 10 years after the initial infection-related hospital visit.

Mortality rates from all infections, including major infections, such as sepsis, down to minor ear infections were elevated in patients with dementia, compared with people who did not have dementia or an infection-related hospital visit.

Ms. Janbek said there are several possible explanations for the association of infection and increased mortality risk in those with dementia. “After a hospital contact with a severe infection, people with dementia may become more reliant on external care, become more frail, and have declined functional levels, which might explain the observed association.”

It might also be that patients with dementia have more severe infections than those without dementia at the time of hospital contact, possibly because of delayed diagnosis, which could explain the higher mortality rates, said Ms. Janbek.

“It is also plausible that infections play a role in worsening dementia and subsequently lead to increased mortality,” she noted.

“Clinicians and health care personnel need to pay closer attention to infections of all types in people with dementia, and steps toward better clinical management and improved posthospital care need to be explored and undertaken. We need to identify possible preventive measures and targeted interventions in people with dementia and infections,” Ms. Janbek said.
 

‘Interesting observation’

Commenting on the study, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, said it presents “an interesting observation.” However, “we can’t make any direct assumptions from this research per se about infections and dementia and whether they are causative in any way,” noted Dr. Edelmayer, who was not involved with the study.

Instead, the study highlighted the importance of “taking care of our overall health and making sure that individuals that might be vulnerable to infection, like those who are already living with dementia, are getting the best care possible,” she said.

Ms. Janbek and Dr. Edelmayer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Infection increases mortality risk among patients with dementia, new research suggests. A large, registry-based cohort study showed that those with dementia had a greater than sixfold increased risk of dying after acquiring any infection than those without dementia or an infection.

“This is the first study to our knowledge to show that increased mortality is observed across all infection types in people with dementia and that increased mortality is seen both short and long term,” said coinvestigator Janet Janbek, a PhD student at the Danish Dementia Research Center, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Large Danish cohort

The investigators analyzed data from Danish national health registries for nearly 1.5 million individuals aged 65 years and older who had visited the hospital with an infection. There were 575,260 deaths during more than 12.7 million person-years of follow-up.

Patients with dementia who also had a hospital visit for infection died at a 6.5 times higher rate than participants without dementia or an infection. Those with either dementia alone or infection-related contacts alone had a threefold increased rate of death.

The mortality rate was highest within the first 30 days following the hospital visit for infection. However, the rate remained elevated for 10 years after the initial infection-related hospital visit.

Mortality rates from all infections, including major infections, such as sepsis, down to minor ear infections were elevated in patients with dementia, compared with people who did not have dementia or an infection-related hospital visit.

Ms. Janbek said there are several possible explanations for the association of infection and increased mortality risk in those with dementia. “After a hospital contact with a severe infection, people with dementia may become more reliant on external care, become more frail, and have declined functional levels, which might explain the observed association.”

It might also be that patients with dementia have more severe infections than those without dementia at the time of hospital contact, possibly because of delayed diagnosis, which could explain the higher mortality rates, said Ms. Janbek.

“It is also plausible that infections play a role in worsening dementia and subsequently lead to increased mortality,” she noted.

“Clinicians and health care personnel need to pay closer attention to infections of all types in people with dementia, and steps toward better clinical management and improved posthospital care need to be explored and undertaken. We need to identify possible preventive measures and targeted interventions in people with dementia and infections,” Ms. Janbek said.
 

‘Interesting observation’

Commenting on the study, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, said it presents “an interesting observation.” However, “we can’t make any direct assumptions from this research per se about infections and dementia and whether they are causative in any way,” noted Dr. Edelmayer, who was not involved with the study.

Instead, the study highlighted the importance of “taking care of our overall health and making sure that individuals that might be vulnerable to infection, like those who are already living with dementia, are getting the best care possible,” she said.

Ms. Janbek and Dr. Edelmayer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Infection increases mortality risk among patients with dementia, new research suggests. A large, registry-based cohort study showed that those with dementia had a greater than sixfold increased risk of dying after acquiring any infection than those without dementia or an infection.

“This is the first study to our knowledge to show that increased mortality is observed across all infection types in people with dementia and that increased mortality is seen both short and long term,” said coinvestigator Janet Janbek, a PhD student at the Danish Dementia Research Center, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Large Danish cohort

The investigators analyzed data from Danish national health registries for nearly 1.5 million individuals aged 65 years and older who had visited the hospital with an infection. There were 575,260 deaths during more than 12.7 million person-years of follow-up.

Patients with dementia who also had a hospital visit for infection died at a 6.5 times higher rate than participants without dementia or an infection. Those with either dementia alone or infection-related contacts alone had a threefold increased rate of death.

The mortality rate was highest within the first 30 days following the hospital visit for infection. However, the rate remained elevated for 10 years after the initial infection-related hospital visit.

Mortality rates from all infections, including major infections, such as sepsis, down to minor ear infections were elevated in patients with dementia, compared with people who did not have dementia or an infection-related hospital visit.

Ms. Janbek said there are several possible explanations for the association of infection and increased mortality risk in those with dementia. “After a hospital contact with a severe infection, people with dementia may become more reliant on external care, become more frail, and have declined functional levels, which might explain the observed association.”

It might also be that patients with dementia have more severe infections than those without dementia at the time of hospital contact, possibly because of delayed diagnosis, which could explain the higher mortality rates, said Ms. Janbek.

“It is also plausible that infections play a role in worsening dementia and subsequently lead to increased mortality,” she noted.

“Clinicians and health care personnel need to pay closer attention to infections of all types in people with dementia, and steps toward better clinical management and improved posthospital care need to be explored and undertaken. We need to identify possible preventive measures and targeted interventions in people with dementia and infections,” Ms. Janbek said.
 

‘Interesting observation’

Commenting on the study, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, said it presents “an interesting observation.” However, “we can’t make any direct assumptions from this research per se about infections and dementia and whether they are causative in any way,” noted Dr. Edelmayer, who was not involved with the study.

Instead, the study highlighted the importance of “taking care of our overall health and making sure that individuals that might be vulnerable to infection, like those who are already living with dementia, are getting the best care possible,” she said.

Ms. Janbek and Dr. Edelmayer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

This is getting pretty ridiculous. The number of well-done, evidence-based trials of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 showing minimal-to-no benefit is increasing. There are still studies that show benefit in certain cases, but many of them are small-scale or even anecdotal.

How long is this going to go on? If the evidence supporting its use were to be put through the standard Food and Drug Administration approval panels it wouldn’t have a chance.

Yet, because it’s become a political football (like masks), science and rational research are tossed out the window. At the end of July we were all treated to videos of Dr. Stella Immanuel claiming the drug is a cure. Dr. Immanuel may have medical credentials, but she also supports beliefs that space aliens and the Illuminati are involved in running governments, and that multiple gynecologic disorders are caused by sexual relations with demons and witches during dreams.

Even so, her hydroxychloroquine statements were given heavy play during a news cycle, then endorsed by the president and his supporters, all with very little immediate background provided for other claims she’s made in the past.

Medicine is a science. Politics shouldn’t be. While hydroxychloroquine may have its uses for other disorders, at this point COVID-19 doesn’t appear to be one of them. Continuing to give it to sick people, despite the growing evidence against it, violates the “do-no-harm” tenet of our field.

There was no shame in trying it and failing. This is the process through which all treatments are tested. If they work (such as with penicillin, for example) that’s wonderful. If they fail (such as with countless Alzheimer’s trials) we learn what doesn’t work and move on.

But to keep claiming success where there isn’t any moves beyond science and into things that whiff of a hoax, such as 1989’s cold fusion or recurrent claims of capturing Bigfoot.

With an implacable enemy such as COVID-19 at the door, money and effort need to be focused on finding what works, not on putting stale milk back in the refrigerator and hoping it comes out fresh.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

This is getting pretty ridiculous. The number of well-done, evidence-based trials of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 showing minimal-to-no benefit is increasing. There are still studies that show benefit in certain cases, but many of them are small-scale or even anecdotal.

How long is this going to go on? If the evidence supporting its use were to be put through the standard Food and Drug Administration approval panels it wouldn’t have a chance.

Yet, because it’s become a political football (like masks), science and rational research are tossed out the window. At the end of July we were all treated to videos of Dr. Stella Immanuel claiming the drug is a cure. Dr. Immanuel may have medical credentials, but she also supports beliefs that space aliens and the Illuminati are involved in running governments, and that multiple gynecologic disorders are caused by sexual relations with demons and witches during dreams.

Even so, her hydroxychloroquine statements were given heavy play during a news cycle, then endorsed by the president and his supporters, all with very little immediate background provided for other claims she’s made in the past.

Medicine is a science. Politics shouldn’t be. While hydroxychloroquine may have its uses for other disorders, at this point COVID-19 doesn’t appear to be one of them. Continuing to give it to sick people, despite the growing evidence against it, violates the “do-no-harm” tenet of our field.

There was no shame in trying it and failing. This is the process through which all treatments are tested. If they work (such as with penicillin, for example) that’s wonderful. If they fail (such as with countless Alzheimer’s trials) we learn what doesn’t work and move on.

But to keep claiming success where there isn’t any moves beyond science and into things that whiff of a hoax, such as 1989’s cold fusion or recurrent claims of capturing Bigfoot.

With an implacable enemy such as COVID-19 at the door, money and effort need to be focused on finding what works, not on putting stale milk back in the refrigerator and hoping it comes out fresh.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

This is getting pretty ridiculous. The number of well-done, evidence-based trials of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 showing minimal-to-no benefit is increasing. There are still studies that show benefit in certain cases, but many of them are small-scale or even anecdotal.

How long is this going to go on? If the evidence supporting its use were to be put through the standard Food and Drug Administration approval panels it wouldn’t have a chance.

Yet, because it’s become a political football (like masks), science and rational research are tossed out the window. At the end of July we were all treated to videos of Dr. Stella Immanuel claiming the drug is a cure. Dr. Immanuel may have medical credentials, but she also supports beliefs that space aliens and the Illuminati are involved in running governments, and that multiple gynecologic disorders are caused by sexual relations with demons and witches during dreams.

Even so, her hydroxychloroquine statements were given heavy play during a news cycle, then endorsed by the president and his supporters, all with very little immediate background provided for other claims she’s made in the past.

Medicine is a science. Politics shouldn’t be. While hydroxychloroquine may have its uses for other disorders, at this point COVID-19 doesn’t appear to be one of them. Continuing to give it to sick people, despite the growing evidence against it, violates the “do-no-harm” tenet of our field.

There was no shame in trying it and failing. This is the process through which all treatments are tested. If they work (such as with penicillin, for example) that’s wonderful. If they fail (such as with countless Alzheimer’s trials) we learn what doesn’t work and move on.

But to keep claiming success where there isn’t any moves beyond science and into things that whiff of a hoax, such as 1989’s cold fusion or recurrent claims of capturing Bigfoot.

With an implacable enemy such as COVID-19 at the door, money and effort need to be focused on finding what works, not on putting stale milk back in the refrigerator and hoping it comes out fresh.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

A new palliative care intervention for U.S. patients with advanced heart failure did not improve quality of life or mood after 16 weeks of participation in a randomized trial.

“Future analyses and studies will examine both the patient factors and intervention components to find the right palliative care dose, for the right patient, at the right time,” wrote Marie A. Bakitas, DNSc, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“My first reaction is disappointment,” Larry Allen, MD, of the University of Colorado in Denver, said in an interview. “We had hoped to see the ENABLE program, which had been successful in cancer, translate to the heart failure setting.”
 

Improvement of palliative care in heart failure patients might rest on who needs it most

“One thing to note,” Dr. Allen added in an interview, “is that, in this population of patients, some of the measures they were trying to improve were already relatively mild to start with. It may not be that the intervention didn’t help but that they picked a patient population that wasn’t particularly in need. If you treat someone who doesn’t have a problem, it’s hard to make them better.”

In a separate interview, Dr. Bakitas acknowledged a similar sentiment. “We were a little surprised until we looked at our sample,” she said. “We realized that we had recruited all these very high-functioning, good quality-of-life patients. What we then did was look at a subsample of patients who had low quality of life at baseline. Low and behold, the intervention had an effect. The patients who started with a poor quality of life had a statistically and clinically significant benefit. Their KCCQ score increased by over 5 points.”

As for next steps. Dr. Bakitas noted that they’re twofold: “One is refining the patient population who can benefit, and the second is working on the intervention and figuring out which pieces are the ones that provide the most benefit.

“Because of logistics and practical issues, not everyone in the study got all the intervention that they should have. Think of it like a drug trial; if someone misses a pill, they don’t get the full dose that we thought would work. We need to make sure our interventions have the right pieces in place. We don’t want to develop a great intervention that’s not practical for patients.”

Study design and outcomes

To determine the benefits of early palliative care for patients with heart failure, the researchers developed the ENABLE CHF-PC (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends Comprehensive Heartcare for Patients and Caregivers) intervention. This nurse-led program includes an in-person consultant followed by six telehealth nurse coaching sessions lasting 30-40 minutes and then monthly follow-up calls through either 48 weeks or the patient’s death.

To test the effectiveness of their intervention after 16 weeks, the researchers launched a two-site, single-blind randomized clinical trial made up of 415 patients who were 50 years or older with advanced heart failure. Among the patients, 53% were men and the mean age was 64 years; 55% were African American, 26% lived in a rural area, and 46% had a high school education or less. The average length of time since heart failure diagnosis was 5.1 years.

Patients were randomized evenly to receive either the ENABLE CHF-PC intervention (208) or usual care. The primary outcomes were quality of life (QOL), which was measured by the heart failure–specific 23-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the 14-item Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Palliative-14 (FACIT Pal-14), and mood, which was measured by the 14-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Pain was measured via 3-item pain intensity and 2-item pain interference scales.

Effect size was measured as Cohen d or d-equivalent, where a small effect is 0.2, medium is 0.5, and large is about 0.854.

At baseline, the mean KCCQ score of 52.6 at baseline indicated a “fairly good” QOL across all patients. After 16 weeks, the mean KCCQ score improved 3.9 points in the intervention group, compared with 2.3 points in the usual care group (d = 0.07; [95% confidence interval, –0.09-0.24]). In addition, the mean FACIT-Pal-14 score improved 1.4 points in the intervention group compared to 0.2 points in the usual care group (d = 0.12 [95% CI, –0.03-0.28]). Only small differences were observed between groups regarding anxiety and depression, but pain intensity (difference, –2.8; SE, 0.9; d = –0.26 [95% CI, –0.43-0.09]) and pain interference (difference, –2.3; SE, 1; d = –0.21 [95% CI, –0.40 to –0.02]) demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically important decrease.
 

As heart failure care evolves, so must palliative care

Though the study and intervention developed by Dr. Bakitas and colleagues is commendable, it is only somewhat surprising that it did not drastically improve patients’ quality of life, Nathan E. Goldstein, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

He noted several reasons for the lack of improvement, including a large proportion of patients still being in the early stages of the disease. Ultimately, however, he wonders if innovation in heart failure care ultimately impacted the study while it was occurring. Medications and technological advancements evolve rapidly in this field, he said, especially over the course of a 3-year study period.

To continue this work and produce real benefits in patients with advanced heart failure, Dr. Goldstein emphasized the need for “dynamic palliative care interventions that can adapt to the constantly changing landscape of the patient’s needs caused by the underlying nature of the disease, as well as the innovations in the field of cardiology.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including data attrition at 16 weeks that was higher than expected – a turn of events they attributed to “unique socioeconomic factors … and lack of regular health care appointments” among some participants. In addition, a minority of patients were unable to stick to the study protocol, which has led the researchers to begin investigating video alternatives to in-person consultation.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Institutes of Nursing Research. Four of the authors reported received grants from the National Institutes of Nursing Research outside the submitted work or during the study. Dr. Goldstein reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Bakitas MA et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 27. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2861.

A new palliative care intervention for U.S. patients with advanced heart failure did not improve quality of life or mood after 16 weeks of participation in a randomized trial.

“Future analyses and studies will examine both the patient factors and intervention components to find the right palliative care dose, for the right patient, at the right time,” wrote Marie A. Bakitas, DNSc, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“My first reaction is disappointment,” Larry Allen, MD, of the University of Colorado in Denver, said in an interview. “We had hoped to see the ENABLE program, which had been successful in cancer, translate to the heart failure setting.”
 

Improvement of palliative care in heart failure patients might rest on who needs it most

“One thing to note,” Dr. Allen added in an interview, “is that, in this population of patients, some of the measures they were trying to improve were already relatively mild to start with. It may not be that the intervention didn’t help but that they picked a patient population that wasn’t particularly in need. If you treat someone who doesn’t have a problem, it’s hard to make them better.”

In a separate interview, Dr. Bakitas acknowledged a similar sentiment. “We were a little surprised until we looked at our sample,” she said. “We realized that we had recruited all these very high-functioning, good quality-of-life patients. What we then did was look at a subsample of patients who had low quality of life at baseline. Low and behold, the intervention had an effect. The patients who started with a poor quality of life had a statistically and clinically significant benefit. Their KCCQ score increased by over 5 points.”

As for next steps. Dr. Bakitas noted that they’re twofold: “One is refining the patient population who can benefit, and the second is working on the intervention and figuring out which pieces are the ones that provide the most benefit.

“Because of logistics and practical issues, not everyone in the study got all the intervention that they should have. Think of it like a drug trial; if someone misses a pill, they don’t get the full dose that we thought would work. We need to make sure our interventions have the right pieces in place. We don’t want to develop a great intervention that’s not practical for patients.”

Study design and outcomes

To determine the benefits of early palliative care for patients with heart failure, the researchers developed the ENABLE CHF-PC (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends Comprehensive Heartcare for Patients and Caregivers) intervention. This nurse-led program includes an in-person consultant followed by six telehealth nurse coaching sessions lasting 30-40 minutes and then monthly follow-up calls through either 48 weeks or the patient’s death.

To test the effectiveness of their intervention after 16 weeks, the researchers launched a two-site, single-blind randomized clinical trial made up of 415 patients who were 50 years or older with advanced heart failure. Among the patients, 53% were men and the mean age was 64 years; 55% were African American, 26% lived in a rural area, and 46% had a high school education or less. The average length of time since heart failure diagnosis was 5.1 years.

Patients were randomized evenly to receive either the ENABLE CHF-PC intervention (208) or usual care. The primary outcomes were quality of life (QOL), which was measured by the heart failure–specific 23-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the 14-item Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Palliative-14 (FACIT Pal-14), and mood, which was measured by the 14-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Pain was measured via 3-item pain intensity and 2-item pain interference scales.

Effect size was measured as Cohen d or d-equivalent, where a small effect is 0.2, medium is 0.5, and large is about 0.854.

At baseline, the mean KCCQ score of 52.6 at baseline indicated a “fairly good” QOL across all patients. After 16 weeks, the mean KCCQ score improved 3.9 points in the intervention group, compared with 2.3 points in the usual care group (d = 0.07; [95% confidence interval, –0.09-0.24]). In addition, the mean FACIT-Pal-14 score improved 1.4 points in the intervention group compared to 0.2 points in the usual care group (d = 0.12 [95% CI, –0.03-0.28]). Only small differences were observed between groups regarding anxiety and depression, but pain intensity (difference, –2.8; SE, 0.9; d = –0.26 [95% CI, –0.43-0.09]) and pain interference (difference, –2.3; SE, 1; d = –0.21 [95% CI, –0.40 to –0.02]) demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically important decrease.
 

As heart failure care evolves, so must palliative care

Though the study and intervention developed by Dr. Bakitas and colleagues is commendable, it is only somewhat surprising that it did not drastically improve patients’ quality of life, Nathan E. Goldstein, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

He noted several reasons for the lack of improvement, including a large proportion of patients still being in the early stages of the disease. Ultimately, however, he wonders if innovation in heart failure care ultimately impacted the study while it was occurring. Medications and technological advancements evolve rapidly in this field, he said, especially over the course of a 3-year study period.

To continue this work and produce real benefits in patients with advanced heart failure, Dr. Goldstein emphasized the need for “dynamic palliative care interventions that can adapt to the constantly changing landscape of the patient’s needs caused by the underlying nature of the disease, as well as the innovations in the field of cardiology.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including data attrition at 16 weeks that was higher than expected – a turn of events they attributed to “unique socioeconomic factors … and lack of regular health care appointments” among some participants. In addition, a minority of patients were unable to stick to the study protocol, which has led the researchers to begin investigating video alternatives to in-person consultation.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Institutes of Nursing Research. Four of the authors reported received grants from the National Institutes of Nursing Research outside the submitted work or during the study. Dr. Goldstein reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Bakitas MA et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 27. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2861.

A new palliative care intervention for U.S. patients with advanced heart failure did not improve quality of life or mood after 16 weeks of participation in a randomized trial.

“Future analyses and studies will examine both the patient factors and intervention components to find the right palliative care dose, for the right patient, at the right time,” wrote Marie A. Bakitas, DNSc, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“My first reaction is disappointment,” Larry Allen, MD, of the University of Colorado in Denver, said in an interview. “We had hoped to see the ENABLE program, which had been successful in cancer, translate to the heart failure setting.”
 

Improvement of palliative care in heart failure patients might rest on who needs it most

“One thing to note,” Dr. Allen added in an interview, “is that, in this population of patients, some of the measures they were trying to improve were already relatively mild to start with. It may not be that the intervention didn’t help but that they picked a patient population that wasn’t particularly in need. If you treat someone who doesn’t have a problem, it’s hard to make them better.”

In a separate interview, Dr. Bakitas acknowledged a similar sentiment. “We were a little surprised until we looked at our sample,” she said. “We realized that we had recruited all these very high-functioning, good quality-of-life patients. What we then did was look at a subsample of patients who had low quality of life at baseline. Low and behold, the intervention had an effect. The patients who started with a poor quality of life had a statistically and clinically significant benefit. Their KCCQ score increased by over 5 points.”

As for next steps. Dr. Bakitas noted that they’re twofold: “One is refining the patient population who can benefit, and the second is working on the intervention and figuring out which pieces are the ones that provide the most benefit.

“Because of logistics and practical issues, not everyone in the study got all the intervention that they should have. Think of it like a drug trial; if someone misses a pill, they don’t get the full dose that we thought would work. We need to make sure our interventions have the right pieces in place. We don’t want to develop a great intervention that’s not practical for patients.”

Study design and outcomes

To determine the benefits of early palliative care for patients with heart failure, the researchers developed the ENABLE CHF-PC (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends Comprehensive Heartcare for Patients and Caregivers) intervention. This nurse-led program includes an in-person consultant followed by six telehealth nurse coaching sessions lasting 30-40 minutes and then monthly follow-up calls through either 48 weeks or the patient’s death.

To test the effectiveness of their intervention after 16 weeks, the researchers launched a two-site, single-blind randomized clinical trial made up of 415 patients who were 50 years or older with advanced heart failure. Among the patients, 53% were men and the mean age was 64 years; 55% were African American, 26% lived in a rural area, and 46% had a high school education or less. The average length of time since heart failure diagnosis was 5.1 years.

Patients were randomized evenly to receive either the ENABLE CHF-PC intervention (208) or usual care. The primary outcomes were quality of life (QOL), which was measured by the heart failure–specific 23-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the 14-item Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Palliative-14 (FACIT Pal-14), and mood, which was measured by the 14-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Pain was measured via 3-item pain intensity and 2-item pain interference scales.

Effect size was measured as Cohen d or d-equivalent, where a small effect is 0.2, medium is 0.5, and large is about 0.854.

At baseline, the mean KCCQ score of 52.6 at baseline indicated a “fairly good” QOL across all patients. After 16 weeks, the mean KCCQ score improved 3.9 points in the intervention group, compared with 2.3 points in the usual care group (d = 0.07; [95% confidence interval, –0.09-0.24]). In addition, the mean FACIT-Pal-14 score improved 1.4 points in the intervention group compared to 0.2 points in the usual care group (d = 0.12 [95% CI, –0.03-0.28]). Only small differences were observed between groups regarding anxiety and depression, but pain intensity (difference, –2.8; SE, 0.9; d = –0.26 [95% CI, –0.43-0.09]) and pain interference (difference, –2.3; SE, 1; d = –0.21 [95% CI, –0.40 to –0.02]) demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically important decrease.
 

As heart failure care evolves, so must palliative care

Though the study and intervention developed by Dr. Bakitas and colleagues is commendable, it is only somewhat surprising that it did not drastically improve patients’ quality of life, Nathan E. Goldstein, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

He noted several reasons for the lack of improvement, including a large proportion of patients still being in the early stages of the disease. Ultimately, however, he wonders if innovation in heart failure care ultimately impacted the study while it was occurring. Medications and technological advancements evolve rapidly in this field, he said, especially over the course of a 3-year study period.

To continue this work and produce real benefits in patients with advanced heart failure, Dr. Goldstein emphasized the need for “dynamic palliative care interventions that can adapt to the constantly changing landscape of the patient’s needs caused by the underlying nature of the disease, as well as the innovations in the field of cardiology.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including data attrition at 16 weeks that was higher than expected – a turn of events they attributed to “unique socioeconomic factors … and lack of regular health care appointments” among some participants. In addition, a minority of patients were unable to stick to the study protocol, which has led the researchers to begin investigating video alternatives to in-person consultation.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Institutes of Nursing Research. Four of the authors reported received grants from the National Institutes of Nursing Research outside the submitted work or during the study. Dr. Goldstein reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Bakitas MA et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 27. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2861.