Geriatrics

A new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine found atypical antipsychotics were not safer than haloperidol when it comes to treating postoperative delirium in older patients.

Dae Hyun Kim, MD, ScD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, in Boston, who is the lead author of the study, said the findings were especially relevant, as the use of atypical antipsychotics, such as quetiapine, olanzapine, and risperidone, has increased while use of haloperidol has fallen.

A separate but related study led by Dr. Kim, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, showed that between 2008 and 2018, use of haloperidol and benzodiazepines in community hospitals and academic medical centers decreased while use of atypical antipsychotics, antidepressants, antiepileptics, and dexmedetomidine rose (P < .01).

“Clinicians should not think atypical antipsychotics are the safer option to haloperidol,” Dr. Kim said. “We should focus on reducing prescriptions.”
 

Postoperative delirium

Postoperative delirium is the among the most common complications of surgery in older adults, affecting between 15% and 50% of those patients who undergo major operations. Postoperative delirium is associated with longer hospital stays, poor functional recovery, institutionalization, dementia, and death.

According to research from Harvard Medical School, postoperative delirium is linked to a 40% faster rate of cognitive decline among patients who develop the condition, compared with those who do not experience the complication.

While older patients often feel tired or a bit off after surgery, marked changes in mental function, such as confusion, disorientation, agitation, aggression, hallucinations, or persistent sleepiness, could indicate postoperative delirium.

“Antipsychotic medications are most commonly used off label for managing those symptoms of delirium,” Dr. Kim said. “What we’ve done is look at the comparative safety of two other drugs.”
 

Results

In the retrospective cohort study, researchers analyzed data from 17,115 patients aged 65 years and older who were without psychiatric disorders and who received oral antipsychotics after major surgery requiring general anesthesia.

“These results don’t apply to people in emergent situations where there is severe behavior that threatens their safety and others,” Dr. Kim noted.

There was no statistically significant difference in the risk for in-hospital death among patients treated with haloperidol (3.7%), olanzapine (2.8%; relative risk, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-1.27), quetiapine (2.6%; RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47-1.04), or risperidone (3.3%; RR, 0.90; CI, 0.53-1.41).

The study also found statistically insignificant differences in the risk for nonfatal clinical events. Those risks ranged from 2% to 2.6% for a cardiac arrhythmia, from 4.2% to 4.6% for pneumonia, and from 0.6% to 1.2% for strokes or transient ischemic attacks.

Esther Oh, MD, PhD, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that caring for patients who experience acute changes in mental status or behaviors during hospitalization can be difficult.

“Although there is a lot of evidence in the literature that nonpharmacological methods to address these problems are effective, staff shortages of recent years have made it even more difficult for the care team to institute these methods,” Dr. Oh said in an interview.
 

Prevention

Dr. Oh and Dr. Kim agreed that nonpharmacologic strategies, such as ensuring good nutrition and hydration, daily walking, cognitive-stimulating activities, and good sleep hygiene, are effective and safe in preventing postoperative delirium.

“These are common sense interventions, but they require a lot of staffing and training,” Dr. Kim said. “It’s a resource-intensive intervention that requires really changing the way hospital staff interacts with older patients in the hospital.”

Second-generation antipsychotic medications often are thought to be safer than haloperidol in terms of side effects, Dr. Oh said, but the new findings challenge that assumption.

“Based on the findings from this study and on prior studies of antipsychotic use for older adults, use of all antipsychotics, both first and second generation, should be reviewed carefully to ensure they are being administered at the lowest effective dose for the shortest duration possible,” she said.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kim and Dr. Oh disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine found atypical antipsychotics were not safer than haloperidol when it comes to treating postoperative delirium in older patients.

Dae Hyun Kim, MD, ScD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, in Boston, who is the lead author of the study, said the findings were especially relevant, as the use of atypical antipsychotics, such as quetiapine, olanzapine, and risperidone, has increased while use of haloperidol has fallen.

A separate but related study led by Dr. Kim, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, showed that between 2008 and 2018, use of haloperidol and benzodiazepines in community hospitals and academic medical centers decreased while use of atypical antipsychotics, antidepressants, antiepileptics, and dexmedetomidine rose (P < .01).

“Clinicians should not think atypical antipsychotics are the safer option to haloperidol,” Dr. Kim said. “We should focus on reducing prescriptions.”
 

Postoperative delirium

Postoperative delirium is the among the most common complications of surgery in older adults, affecting between 15% and 50% of those patients who undergo major operations. Postoperative delirium is associated with longer hospital stays, poor functional recovery, institutionalization, dementia, and death.

According to research from Harvard Medical School, postoperative delirium is linked to a 40% faster rate of cognitive decline among patients who develop the condition, compared with those who do not experience the complication.

While older patients often feel tired or a bit off after surgery, marked changes in mental function, such as confusion, disorientation, agitation, aggression, hallucinations, or persistent sleepiness, could indicate postoperative delirium.

“Antipsychotic medications are most commonly used off label for managing those symptoms of delirium,” Dr. Kim said. “What we’ve done is look at the comparative safety of two other drugs.”
 

Results

In the retrospective cohort study, researchers analyzed data from 17,115 patients aged 65 years and older who were without psychiatric disorders and who received oral antipsychotics after major surgery requiring general anesthesia.

“These results don’t apply to people in emergent situations where there is severe behavior that threatens their safety and others,” Dr. Kim noted.

There was no statistically significant difference in the risk for in-hospital death among patients treated with haloperidol (3.7%), olanzapine (2.8%; relative risk, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-1.27), quetiapine (2.6%; RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47-1.04), or risperidone (3.3%; RR, 0.90; CI, 0.53-1.41).

The study also found statistically insignificant differences in the risk for nonfatal clinical events. Those risks ranged from 2% to 2.6% for a cardiac arrhythmia, from 4.2% to 4.6% for pneumonia, and from 0.6% to 1.2% for strokes or transient ischemic attacks.

Esther Oh, MD, PhD, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that caring for patients who experience acute changes in mental status or behaviors during hospitalization can be difficult.

“Although there is a lot of evidence in the literature that nonpharmacological methods to address these problems are effective, staff shortages of recent years have made it even more difficult for the care team to institute these methods,” Dr. Oh said in an interview.
 

Prevention

Dr. Oh and Dr. Kim agreed that nonpharmacologic strategies, such as ensuring good nutrition and hydration, daily walking, cognitive-stimulating activities, and good sleep hygiene, are effective and safe in preventing postoperative delirium.

“These are common sense interventions, but they require a lot of staffing and training,” Dr. Kim said. “It’s a resource-intensive intervention that requires really changing the way hospital staff interacts with older patients in the hospital.”

Second-generation antipsychotic medications often are thought to be safer than haloperidol in terms of side effects, Dr. Oh said, but the new findings challenge that assumption.

“Based on the findings from this study and on prior studies of antipsychotic use for older adults, use of all antipsychotics, both first and second generation, should be reviewed carefully to ensure they are being administered at the lowest effective dose for the shortest duration possible,” she said.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kim and Dr. Oh disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine found atypical antipsychotics were not safer than haloperidol when it comes to treating postoperative delirium in older patients.

Dae Hyun Kim, MD, ScD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, in Boston, who is the lead author of the study, said the findings were especially relevant, as the use of atypical antipsychotics, such as quetiapine, olanzapine, and risperidone, has increased while use of haloperidol has fallen.

A separate but related study led by Dr. Kim, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, showed that between 2008 and 2018, use of haloperidol and benzodiazepines in community hospitals and academic medical centers decreased while use of atypical antipsychotics, antidepressants, antiepileptics, and dexmedetomidine rose (P < .01).

“Clinicians should not think atypical antipsychotics are the safer option to haloperidol,” Dr. Kim said. “We should focus on reducing prescriptions.”
 

Postoperative delirium

Postoperative delirium is the among the most common complications of surgery in older adults, affecting between 15% and 50% of those patients who undergo major operations. Postoperative delirium is associated with longer hospital stays, poor functional recovery, institutionalization, dementia, and death.

According to research from Harvard Medical School, postoperative delirium is linked to a 40% faster rate of cognitive decline among patients who develop the condition, compared with those who do not experience the complication.

While older patients often feel tired or a bit off after surgery, marked changes in mental function, such as confusion, disorientation, agitation, aggression, hallucinations, or persistent sleepiness, could indicate postoperative delirium.

“Antipsychotic medications are most commonly used off label for managing those symptoms of delirium,” Dr. Kim said. “What we’ve done is look at the comparative safety of two other drugs.”
 

Results

In the retrospective cohort study, researchers analyzed data from 17,115 patients aged 65 years and older who were without psychiatric disorders and who received oral antipsychotics after major surgery requiring general anesthesia.

“These results don’t apply to people in emergent situations where there is severe behavior that threatens their safety and others,” Dr. Kim noted.

There was no statistically significant difference in the risk for in-hospital death among patients treated with haloperidol (3.7%), olanzapine (2.8%; relative risk, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-1.27), quetiapine (2.6%; RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47-1.04), or risperidone (3.3%; RR, 0.90; CI, 0.53-1.41).

The study also found statistically insignificant differences in the risk for nonfatal clinical events. Those risks ranged from 2% to 2.6% for a cardiac arrhythmia, from 4.2% to 4.6% for pneumonia, and from 0.6% to 1.2% for strokes or transient ischemic attacks.

Esther Oh, MD, PhD, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that caring for patients who experience acute changes in mental status or behaviors during hospitalization can be difficult.

“Although there is a lot of evidence in the literature that nonpharmacological methods to address these problems are effective, staff shortages of recent years have made it even more difficult for the care team to institute these methods,” Dr. Oh said in an interview.
 

Prevention

Dr. Oh and Dr. Kim agreed that nonpharmacologic strategies, such as ensuring good nutrition and hydration, daily walking, cognitive-stimulating activities, and good sleep hygiene, are effective and safe in preventing postoperative delirium.

“These are common sense interventions, but they require a lot of staffing and training,” Dr. Kim said. “It’s a resource-intensive intervention that requires really changing the way hospital staff interacts with older patients in the hospital.”

Second-generation antipsychotic medications often are thought to be safer than haloperidol in terms of side effects, Dr. Oh said, but the new findings challenge that assumption.

“Based on the findings from this study and on prior studies of antipsychotic use for older adults, use of all antipsychotics, both first and second generation, should be reviewed carefully to ensure they are being administered at the lowest effective dose for the shortest duration possible,” she said.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kim and Dr. Oh disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Palliative care has been shown to improve quality of life, receipt of goal-concordant care, end-of-life decision-making, and improvement in pain and symptoms in individuals with serious illness. However, palliative and end-of-life care remain underutilized in racial and ethnic minorities.¹ Health disparities such as access, quality of care, and health outcomes among minority groups exist in delivery and receipt of care within the health care system, and this includes the care of individuals with serious illness and at the end of life.¹

Racial and ethnic minorities are less likely to receive goal-concordant care, participate in advance care planning, and have access to palliative care or hospice.^2-4 They are more likely to die in a hospital, have inadequate pain and symptom management, and experience poor provider-patient communication.^5-7 Other contributing factors include lack of knowledge of hospice and palliative care services, mistrust of the health care system, spiritual and religious beliefs, provider bias, and cultural beliefs.¹

Despite these disparities, interventions have had limited success,⁸ and there are gaps in content, methods, and inclusion of racial and ethnic groups within palliative care research.⁷

Efforts to improve health equity for people with serious illness have been identified as an “urgent call to action.”¹

A few recommended actionable items include delivering culturally competent care by ensuring availability of culturally and linguistically appropriate materials and information, education, and training for providers, and practicing cultural humility; contributing to workforce diversity by hiring and training diverse staff; and partnering with community organizations to build trust and to facilitate dissemination of culturally and linguistically appropriate information to providers in caring for their diverse patient populations.^1,9

One of the first steps identified is to recognize that there is a problem and prioritize efforts to understand its “multifaceted nature.”¹⁰ This should occur on multiple levels including the individual (patient and caregiver), interpersonal (health care team), organization, and policy levels,¹⁰ and be done through clinical, research, and educational platforms.

At the interpersonal level, we as the health care team can start by reflecting, acknowledging biases, seeking educational and training opportunities on cross-cultural interactions, learning about cultural and spiritual beliefs, and developing skills in culturally and linguistically appropriate communication regarding goals of care and advance care planning.^1,10

For those seeking resources, organizations such as the Center to Advance Palliative Care’s Project Equity and the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine have ongoing efforts to educate and train physicians and health care professionals to improve and understand health equity in palliative care by providing resource portals, toolkits, training, and general information.

It is imperative to move forward in actionable ways to address not only racial and ethnic disparities, but advance equity in serious illness care for health care organizations, providers, and policymakers.¹

Dr. Kang is in the division of gerontology and geriatric medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.

References

1. Barrett NJ et al. N C Med J. 2020;81:254-6.

2. Johnson KS et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59:732-7.

3. Sharma RK et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3802-8.

4. Muni S et al. Chest. 2011;139:1025-33.

5. Anderson KO et al. J Pain. 2009;10:1187-204.

6. Mack JW et al. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1533-40.

7. Johnson KS. J Palliat Med. 2013;16(11):1329-34.

8. Brown CE et al. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2021;63(5):e465-e71.

9. Chambers B. Center for Advancing Palliative Care. July 9, 2020.

10. Koffman J et al. BMC Palliat Care. 2023;22(64):1-3.

Palliative care has been shown to improve quality of life, receipt of goal-concordant care, end-of-life decision-making, and improvement in pain and symptoms in individuals with serious illness. However, palliative and end-of-life care remain underutilized in racial and ethnic minorities.¹ Health disparities such as access, quality of care, and health outcomes among minority groups exist in delivery and receipt of care within the health care system, and this includes the care of individuals with serious illness and at the end of life.¹

Racial and ethnic minorities are less likely to receive goal-concordant care, participate in advance care planning, and have access to palliative care or hospice.^2-4 They are more likely to die in a hospital, have inadequate pain and symptom management, and experience poor provider-patient communication.^5-7 Other contributing factors include lack of knowledge of hospice and palliative care services, mistrust of the health care system, spiritual and religious beliefs, provider bias, and cultural beliefs.¹

Despite these disparities, interventions have had limited success,⁸ and there are gaps in content, methods, and inclusion of racial and ethnic groups within palliative care research.⁷

Efforts to improve health equity for people with serious illness have been identified as an “urgent call to action.”¹

A few recommended actionable items include delivering culturally competent care by ensuring availability of culturally and linguistically appropriate materials and information, education, and training for providers, and practicing cultural humility; contributing to workforce diversity by hiring and training diverse staff; and partnering with community organizations to build trust and to facilitate dissemination of culturally and linguistically appropriate information to providers in caring for their diverse patient populations.^1,9

One of the first steps identified is to recognize that there is a problem and prioritize efforts to understand its “multifaceted nature.”¹⁰ This should occur on multiple levels including the individual (patient and caregiver), interpersonal (health care team), organization, and policy levels,¹⁰ and be done through clinical, research, and educational platforms.

At the interpersonal level, we as the health care team can start by reflecting, acknowledging biases, seeking educational and training opportunities on cross-cultural interactions, learning about cultural and spiritual beliefs, and developing skills in culturally and linguistically appropriate communication regarding goals of care and advance care planning.^1,10

For those seeking resources, organizations such as the Center to Advance Palliative Care’s Project Equity and the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine have ongoing efforts to educate and train physicians and health care professionals to improve and understand health equity in palliative care by providing resource portals, toolkits, training, and general information.

It is imperative to move forward in actionable ways to address not only racial and ethnic disparities, but advance equity in serious illness care for health care organizations, providers, and policymakers.¹

Dr. Kang is in the division of gerontology and geriatric medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.

References

1. Barrett NJ et al. N C Med J. 2020;81:254-6.

2. Johnson KS et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59:732-7.

3. Sharma RK et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3802-8.

4. Muni S et al. Chest. 2011;139:1025-33.

5. Anderson KO et al. J Pain. 2009;10:1187-204.

6. Mack JW et al. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1533-40.

7. Johnson KS. J Palliat Med. 2013;16(11):1329-34.

8. Brown CE et al. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2021;63(5):e465-e71.

9. Chambers B. Center for Advancing Palliative Care. July 9, 2020.

10. Koffman J et al. BMC Palliat Care. 2023;22(64):1-3.

Palliative care has been shown to improve quality of life, receipt of goal-concordant care, end-of-life decision-making, and improvement in pain and symptoms in individuals with serious illness. However, palliative and end-of-life care remain underutilized in racial and ethnic minorities.¹ Health disparities such as access, quality of care, and health outcomes among minority groups exist in delivery and receipt of care within the health care system, and this includes the care of individuals with serious illness and at the end of life.¹

Racial and ethnic minorities are less likely to receive goal-concordant care, participate in advance care planning, and have access to palliative care or hospice.^2-4 They are more likely to die in a hospital, have inadequate pain and symptom management, and experience poor provider-patient communication.^5-7 Other contributing factors include lack of knowledge of hospice and palliative care services, mistrust of the health care system, spiritual and religious beliefs, provider bias, and cultural beliefs.¹

Despite these disparities, interventions have had limited success,⁸ and there are gaps in content, methods, and inclusion of racial and ethnic groups within palliative care research.⁷

Efforts to improve health equity for people with serious illness have been identified as an “urgent call to action.”¹

A few recommended actionable items include delivering culturally competent care by ensuring availability of culturally and linguistically appropriate materials and information, education, and training for providers, and practicing cultural humility; contributing to workforce diversity by hiring and training diverse staff; and partnering with community organizations to build trust and to facilitate dissemination of culturally and linguistically appropriate information to providers in caring for their diverse patient populations.^1,9

One of the first steps identified is to recognize that there is a problem and prioritize efforts to understand its “multifaceted nature.”¹⁰ This should occur on multiple levels including the individual (patient and caregiver), interpersonal (health care team), organization, and policy levels,¹⁰ and be done through clinical, research, and educational platforms.

At the interpersonal level, we as the health care team can start by reflecting, acknowledging biases, seeking educational and training opportunities on cross-cultural interactions, learning about cultural and spiritual beliefs, and developing skills in culturally and linguistically appropriate communication regarding goals of care and advance care planning.^1,10

For those seeking resources, organizations such as the Center to Advance Palliative Care’s Project Equity and the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine have ongoing efforts to educate and train physicians and health care professionals to improve and understand health equity in palliative care by providing resource portals, toolkits, training, and general information.

It is imperative to move forward in actionable ways to address not only racial and ethnic disparities, but advance equity in serious illness care for health care organizations, providers, and policymakers.¹

Dr. Kang is in the division of gerontology and geriatric medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.

References

1. Barrett NJ et al. N C Med J. 2020;81:254-6.

2. Johnson KS et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59:732-7.

3. Sharma RK et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3802-8.

4. Muni S et al. Chest. 2011;139:1025-33.

5. Anderson KO et al. J Pain. 2009;10:1187-204.

6. Mack JW et al. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1533-40.

7. Johnson KS. J Palliat Med. 2013;16(11):1329-34.

8. Brown CE et al. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2021;63(5):e465-e71.

9. Chambers B. Center for Advancing Palliative Care. July 9, 2020.

10. Koffman J et al. BMC Palliat Care. 2023;22(64):1-3.

Switching frail patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) from anticoagulation therapy with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) to a novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) resulted in more bleeding without any reduction in thromboembolic complications or all-cause mortality, randomized trial results show.

The study, FRAIL-AF, is the first randomized NOAC trial to exclusively include frail older patients, said lead author Linda P.T. Joosten, MD, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care in Utrecht, the Netherlands, and these unexpected findings provide evidence that goes beyond what is currently available.

“Data from the FRAIL-AF trial showed that switching from a VKA to a NOAC should not be considered without a clear indication in frail older patients with AF[ib], as switching to a NOAC leads to 69% more bleeding,” she concluded, without any benefit on secondary clinical endpoints, including thromboembolic events and all-cause mortality.

“The results turned out different than we expected,” Dr. Joosten said. “The hypothesis of this superiority trial was that switching from VKA therapy to a NOAC would result in less bleeding. However, we observed the opposite. After the interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board advised to stop inclusion because switching from a VKA to a NOAC was clearly contraindicated with a hazard ratio of 1.69 and a highly significant P value of .001.”

Results of FRAIL-AF were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published online in the journal Circulation.

Session moderator Renate B. Schnabel, MD, interventional cardiologist with University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg (Germany), congratulated the researchers on these “astonishing” data.

“The thing I want to emphasize here is that, in the absence of randomized controlled trial data, we should be very cautious in extrapolating data from the landmark trials to populations not enrolled in those, and to rely on observational data only,” Dr. Schnabel told Dr. Joosten. “We need randomized controlled trials that sometimes give astonishing results.”
 

Frailty a clinical syndrome

Frailty is “a lot more than just aging, multiple comorbidities and polypharmacy,” Dr. Joosten explained. “It’s really a clinical syndrome, with people with a high biological vulnerability, dependency on significant others, and a reduced capacity to resist stressors, all leading to a reduced homeostatic reserve.”

Frailty is common in the community, with a prevalence of about 12%, she noted, “and even more important, AF[ib] in frail older people is very common, with a prevalence of 18%. And “without any doubt, we have to adequately anticoagulate frail AF[ib] patients, as they have a high stroke risk, with an incidence of 12.4% per year,” Dr. Joosten noted, compared with 3.9% per year among nonfrail AFib patients.

NOACs are preferred over VKAs in nonfrail AFib patients, after four major trials, RE-LY with dabigatran, ROCKET-AF with rivaroxaban, ARISTOTLE with apixaban, and ENGAGE-AF with edoxaban, showed that NOAC treatment resulted in less major bleeding while stroke risk was comparable with treatment with warfarin, she noted.

The 2023 European Heart Rhythm Association consensus document on management of arrhythmias in frailty syndrome concludes that the advantages of NOACs relative to VKAs are “likely consistent” in frail and nonfrail AFib patients, but the level of evidence is low.  

So it’s unknown if NOACs are preferred over VKAs in frail AFib patients, “and it’s even more questionable whether patients on VKAs should switch to NOAC therapy,” Dr. Joosten said.

This new trial aimed to answer the question of whether switching frail AFib patients currently managed on a VKA to a NOAC would reduce bleeding. FRAIL-AF was a pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled superiority trial.

Older AFib patients were deemed frail if they were aged 75 years or older and had a score of 3 or more on the validated Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI). Patients with a glomerular filtration rate of less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² or with valvular AFib were excluded.

Eligible patients were then assigned randomly to switch from their international normalized ratio (INR)–guided VKA treatment with either 1 mg acenocoumarol or 3 mg phenprocoumon, to a NOAC, or to continue VKA treatment. They were followed for 12 months for the primary outcome – major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding complication, whichever came first – accounting for death as a competing risk.

A total of 1,330 patients were randomly assigned between January 2018 and June 2022. Their mean age was 83 years, and they had a median GFI of 4. After randomization, 6 patients in the switch-to-NOAC arm, and 1 in the continue-VKA arm were found to have exclusion criteria, so in the end, 662 patients were switched from a VKA to NOAC, while 661 continued on VKA therapy. The choice of NOAC was made by the treating physician.

Major bleeding was defined as a fatal bleeding; bleeding in a critical area or organ; bleeding leading to transfusion; and/or bleeding leading to a fall in hemoglobin level of 2 g/dL (1.24 mmol/L) or more. Nonmajor bleeding was bleeding not considered major but requiring face-to-face consultation, hospitalization or increased level of care, or medical intervention.

After a prespecified futility analysis planned after 163 primary outcome events, the trial was halted when it was seen that there were 101 primary outcome events in the switch arm compared to 62 in the continue arm, Dr. Joosten said. The difference appeared to be driven by clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding.

Completely different patients

Discussant at the meeting for the presentation was Isabelle C. Van Gelder, MD, University Medical Centre Groningen (the Netherlands). She said the results are important and relevant because it “provides data on an important gap of knowledge in our AF[ib] guidelines, and a note for all the cardiologists – this study was not done in the hospital. This trial was done in general practitioner practices, so that’s important to consider.”

Comparing FRAIL-AF patients with those of the four previous NOAC trials, “you see that enormous difference in age,” with an average age of 83 years versus 70-73 years in those trials. “These are completely different patients than have been included previously,” she said.

That GFI score of 4 or more includes patients on four or more different types of medication, as well as memory complaints, an inability to walk around the house, and problems with vision or hearing.

The finding of a 69% increase in bleeding with NOACs in FRAIL-AF was “completely unexpected, and I think that we as cardiologists and as NOAC believers did not expect it at all, but it is as clear as it is.” The curves don’t diverge immediately, but rather after 3 months or thereafter, “so it has nothing to do with the switching process. So why did it occur?”

The Netherlands has dedicated thrombosis services that might improve time in therapeutic range for VKA patients, but there is no real difference in TTRs in FRAIL-AF versus the other NOAC trials, Dr. Van Gelder noted.

The most likely suspect in her view is frailty itself, in particular the tendency for patients to be on a high number of medications. A previous study showed, for example, that polypharmacy could be used as a proxy for the effect of frailty on bleeding risk; patients on 10 or more medications had a higher risk for bleeding on treatment with rivaroxaban versus those on 4 or fewer medications.

“Therefore, in my view, why was there such a high risk of bleeding? It’s because these are other patients than we are normally used to treat, we as cardiologists,” although general practitioners see these patients all the time. “It’s all about frailty.”

NOACs are still relatively new drugs, with possible unknown interactions, she added. Because of their frailty and polypharmacy, these patients may benefit from INR control, Dr. Van Gelder speculated. “Therefore, I agree with them that we should be careful; if such old, frail patients survive on VKA, do not change medications and do not switch!”

The study was supported by the Dutch government with additional and unrestricted educational grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS-Pfizer, Bayer, and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Joosten reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Van Gelder reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Switching frail patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) from anticoagulation therapy with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) to a novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) resulted in more bleeding without any reduction in thromboembolic complications or all-cause mortality, randomized trial results show.

The study, FRAIL-AF, is the first randomized NOAC trial to exclusively include frail older patients, said lead author Linda P.T. Joosten, MD, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care in Utrecht, the Netherlands, and these unexpected findings provide evidence that goes beyond what is currently available.

“Data from the FRAIL-AF trial showed that switching from a VKA to a NOAC should not be considered without a clear indication in frail older patients with AF[ib], as switching to a NOAC leads to 69% more bleeding,” she concluded, without any benefit on secondary clinical endpoints, including thromboembolic events and all-cause mortality.

“The results turned out different than we expected,” Dr. Joosten said. “The hypothesis of this superiority trial was that switching from VKA therapy to a NOAC would result in less bleeding. However, we observed the opposite. After the interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board advised to stop inclusion because switching from a VKA to a NOAC was clearly contraindicated with a hazard ratio of 1.69 and a highly significant P value of .001.”

Results of FRAIL-AF were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published online in the journal Circulation.

Session moderator Renate B. Schnabel, MD, interventional cardiologist with University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg (Germany), congratulated the researchers on these “astonishing” data.

“The thing I want to emphasize here is that, in the absence of randomized controlled trial data, we should be very cautious in extrapolating data from the landmark trials to populations not enrolled in those, and to rely on observational data only,” Dr. Schnabel told Dr. Joosten. “We need randomized controlled trials that sometimes give astonishing results.”
 

Frailty a clinical syndrome

Frailty is “a lot more than just aging, multiple comorbidities and polypharmacy,” Dr. Joosten explained. “It’s really a clinical syndrome, with people with a high biological vulnerability, dependency on significant others, and a reduced capacity to resist stressors, all leading to a reduced homeostatic reserve.”

Frailty is common in the community, with a prevalence of about 12%, she noted, “and even more important, AF[ib] in frail older people is very common, with a prevalence of 18%. And “without any doubt, we have to adequately anticoagulate frail AF[ib] patients, as they have a high stroke risk, with an incidence of 12.4% per year,” Dr. Joosten noted, compared with 3.9% per year among nonfrail AFib patients.

NOACs are preferred over VKAs in nonfrail AFib patients, after four major trials, RE-LY with dabigatran, ROCKET-AF with rivaroxaban, ARISTOTLE with apixaban, and ENGAGE-AF with edoxaban, showed that NOAC treatment resulted in less major bleeding while stroke risk was comparable with treatment with warfarin, she noted.

The 2023 European Heart Rhythm Association consensus document on management of arrhythmias in frailty syndrome concludes that the advantages of NOACs relative to VKAs are “likely consistent” in frail and nonfrail AFib patients, but the level of evidence is low.  

So it’s unknown if NOACs are preferred over VKAs in frail AFib patients, “and it’s even more questionable whether patients on VKAs should switch to NOAC therapy,” Dr. Joosten said.

This new trial aimed to answer the question of whether switching frail AFib patients currently managed on a VKA to a NOAC would reduce bleeding. FRAIL-AF was a pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled superiority trial.

Older AFib patients were deemed frail if they were aged 75 years or older and had a score of 3 or more on the validated Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI). Patients with a glomerular filtration rate of less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² or with valvular AFib were excluded.

Eligible patients were then assigned randomly to switch from their international normalized ratio (INR)–guided VKA treatment with either 1 mg acenocoumarol or 3 mg phenprocoumon, to a NOAC, or to continue VKA treatment. They were followed for 12 months for the primary outcome – major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding complication, whichever came first – accounting for death as a competing risk.

A total of 1,330 patients were randomly assigned between January 2018 and June 2022. Their mean age was 83 years, and they had a median GFI of 4. After randomization, 6 patients in the switch-to-NOAC arm, and 1 in the continue-VKA arm were found to have exclusion criteria, so in the end, 662 patients were switched from a VKA to NOAC, while 661 continued on VKA therapy. The choice of NOAC was made by the treating physician.

Major bleeding was defined as a fatal bleeding; bleeding in a critical area or organ; bleeding leading to transfusion; and/or bleeding leading to a fall in hemoglobin level of 2 g/dL (1.24 mmol/L) or more. Nonmajor bleeding was bleeding not considered major but requiring face-to-face consultation, hospitalization or increased level of care, or medical intervention.

After a prespecified futility analysis planned after 163 primary outcome events, the trial was halted when it was seen that there were 101 primary outcome events in the switch arm compared to 62 in the continue arm, Dr. Joosten said. The difference appeared to be driven by clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding.

Completely different patients

Discussant at the meeting for the presentation was Isabelle C. Van Gelder, MD, University Medical Centre Groningen (the Netherlands). She said the results are important and relevant because it “provides data on an important gap of knowledge in our AF[ib] guidelines, and a note for all the cardiologists – this study was not done in the hospital. This trial was done in general practitioner practices, so that’s important to consider.”

Comparing FRAIL-AF patients with those of the four previous NOAC trials, “you see that enormous difference in age,” with an average age of 83 years versus 70-73 years in those trials. “These are completely different patients than have been included previously,” she said.

That GFI score of 4 or more includes patients on four or more different types of medication, as well as memory complaints, an inability to walk around the house, and problems with vision or hearing.

The finding of a 69% increase in bleeding with NOACs in FRAIL-AF was “completely unexpected, and I think that we as cardiologists and as NOAC believers did not expect it at all, but it is as clear as it is.” The curves don’t diverge immediately, but rather after 3 months or thereafter, “so it has nothing to do with the switching process. So why did it occur?”

The Netherlands has dedicated thrombosis services that might improve time in therapeutic range for VKA patients, but there is no real difference in TTRs in FRAIL-AF versus the other NOAC trials, Dr. Van Gelder noted.

The most likely suspect in her view is frailty itself, in particular the tendency for patients to be on a high number of medications. A previous study showed, for example, that polypharmacy could be used as a proxy for the effect of frailty on bleeding risk; patients on 10 or more medications had a higher risk for bleeding on treatment with rivaroxaban versus those on 4 or fewer medications.

“Therefore, in my view, why was there such a high risk of bleeding? It’s because these are other patients than we are normally used to treat, we as cardiologists,” although general practitioners see these patients all the time. “It’s all about frailty.”

NOACs are still relatively new drugs, with possible unknown interactions, she added. Because of their frailty and polypharmacy, these patients may benefit from INR control, Dr. Van Gelder speculated. “Therefore, I agree with them that we should be careful; if such old, frail patients survive on VKA, do not change medications and do not switch!”

The study was supported by the Dutch government with additional and unrestricted educational grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS-Pfizer, Bayer, and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Joosten reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Van Gelder reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Switching frail patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) from anticoagulation therapy with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) to a novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) resulted in more bleeding without any reduction in thromboembolic complications or all-cause mortality, randomized trial results show.

The study, FRAIL-AF, is the first randomized NOAC trial to exclusively include frail older patients, said lead author Linda P.T. Joosten, MD, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care in Utrecht, the Netherlands, and these unexpected findings provide evidence that goes beyond what is currently available.

“Data from the FRAIL-AF trial showed that switching from a VKA to a NOAC should not be considered without a clear indication in frail older patients with AF[ib], as switching to a NOAC leads to 69% more bleeding,” she concluded, without any benefit on secondary clinical endpoints, including thromboembolic events and all-cause mortality.

“The results turned out different than we expected,” Dr. Joosten said. “The hypothesis of this superiority trial was that switching from VKA therapy to a NOAC would result in less bleeding. However, we observed the opposite. After the interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board advised to stop inclusion because switching from a VKA to a NOAC was clearly contraindicated with a hazard ratio of 1.69 and a highly significant P value of .001.”

Results of FRAIL-AF were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published online in the journal Circulation.

Session moderator Renate B. Schnabel, MD, interventional cardiologist with University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg (Germany), congratulated the researchers on these “astonishing” data.

“The thing I want to emphasize here is that, in the absence of randomized controlled trial data, we should be very cautious in extrapolating data from the landmark trials to populations not enrolled in those, and to rely on observational data only,” Dr. Schnabel told Dr. Joosten. “We need randomized controlled trials that sometimes give astonishing results.”
 

Frailty a clinical syndrome

Frailty is “a lot more than just aging, multiple comorbidities and polypharmacy,” Dr. Joosten explained. “It’s really a clinical syndrome, with people with a high biological vulnerability, dependency on significant others, and a reduced capacity to resist stressors, all leading to a reduced homeostatic reserve.”

Frailty is common in the community, with a prevalence of about 12%, she noted, “and even more important, AF[ib] in frail older people is very common, with a prevalence of 18%. And “without any doubt, we have to adequately anticoagulate frail AF[ib] patients, as they have a high stroke risk, with an incidence of 12.4% per year,” Dr. Joosten noted, compared with 3.9% per year among nonfrail AFib patients.

NOACs are preferred over VKAs in nonfrail AFib patients, after four major trials, RE-LY with dabigatran, ROCKET-AF with rivaroxaban, ARISTOTLE with apixaban, and ENGAGE-AF with edoxaban, showed that NOAC treatment resulted in less major bleeding while stroke risk was comparable with treatment with warfarin, she noted.

The 2023 European Heart Rhythm Association consensus document on management of arrhythmias in frailty syndrome concludes that the advantages of NOACs relative to VKAs are “likely consistent” in frail and nonfrail AFib patients, but the level of evidence is low.  

So it’s unknown if NOACs are preferred over VKAs in frail AFib patients, “and it’s even more questionable whether patients on VKAs should switch to NOAC therapy,” Dr. Joosten said.

This new trial aimed to answer the question of whether switching frail AFib patients currently managed on a VKA to a NOAC would reduce bleeding. FRAIL-AF was a pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled superiority trial.

Older AFib patients were deemed frail if they were aged 75 years or older and had a score of 3 or more on the validated Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI). Patients with a glomerular filtration rate of less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² or with valvular AFib were excluded.

Eligible patients were then assigned randomly to switch from their international normalized ratio (INR)–guided VKA treatment with either 1 mg acenocoumarol or 3 mg phenprocoumon, to a NOAC, or to continue VKA treatment. They were followed for 12 months for the primary outcome – major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding complication, whichever came first – accounting for death as a competing risk.

A total of 1,330 patients were randomly assigned between January 2018 and June 2022. Their mean age was 83 years, and they had a median GFI of 4. After randomization, 6 patients in the switch-to-NOAC arm, and 1 in the continue-VKA arm were found to have exclusion criteria, so in the end, 662 patients were switched from a VKA to NOAC, while 661 continued on VKA therapy. The choice of NOAC was made by the treating physician.

Major bleeding was defined as a fatal bleeding; bleeding in a critical area or organ; bleeding leading to transfusion; and/or bleeding leading to a fall in hemoglobin level of 2 g/dL (1.24 mmol/L) or more. Nonmajor bleeding was bleeding not considered major but requiring face-to-face consultation, hospitalization or increased level of care, or medical intervention.

After a prespecified futility analysis planned after 163 primary outcome events, the trial was halted when it was seen that there were 101 primary outcome events in the switch arm compared to 62 in the continue arm, Dr. Joosten said. The difference appeared to be driven by clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding.

Completely different patients

Discussant at the meeting for the presentation was Isabelle C. Van Gelder, MD, University Medical Centre Groningen (the Netherlands). She said the results are important and relevant because it “provides data on an important gap of knowledge in our AF[ib] guidelines, and a note for all the cardiologists – this study was not done in the hospital. This trial was done in general practitioner practices, so that’s important to consider.”

Comparing FRAIL-AF patients with those of the four previous NOAC trials, “you see that enormous difference in age,” with an average age of 83 years versus 70-73 years in those trials. “These are completely different patients than have been included previously,” she said.

That GFI score of 4 or more includes patients on four or more different types of medication, as well as memory complaints, an inability to walk around the house, and problems with vision or hearing.

The finding of a 69% increase in bleeding with NOACs in FRAIL-AF was “completely unexpected, and I think that we as cardiologists and as NOAC believers did not expect it at all, but it is as clear as it is.” The curves don’t diverge immediately, but rather after 3 months or thereafter, “so it has nothing to do with the switching process. So why did it occur?”

The Netherlands has dedicated thrombosis services that might improve time in therapeutic range for VKA patients, but there is no real difference in TTRs in FRAIL-AF versus the other NOAC trials, Dr. Van Gelder noted.

The most likely suspect in her view is frailty itself, in particular the tendency for patients to be on a high number of medications. A previous study showed, for example, that polypharmacy could be used as a proxy for the effect of frailty on bleeding risk; patients on 10 or more medications had a higher risk for bleeding on treatment with rivaroxaban versus those on 4 or fewer medications.

“Therefore, in my view, why was there such a high risk of bleeding? It’s because these are other patients than we are normally used to treat, we as cardiologists,” although general practitioners see these patients all the time. “It’s all about frailty.”

NOACs are still relatively new drugs, with possible unknown interactions, she added. Because of their frailty and polypharmacy, these patients may benefit from INR control, Dr. Van Gelder speculated. “Therefore, I agree with them that we should be careful; if such old, frail patients survive on VKA, do not change medications and do not switch!”

The study was supported by the Dutch government with additional and unrestricted educational grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS-Pfizer, Bayer, and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Joosten reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Van Gelder reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

If you’re anywhere near Seattle, anywhere near Florida, or anywhere where it might be not oppressively hot outside but encouraging some people who might want to go out and get a little exercise, you’ve undoubtedly seen or heard of pickleball.

This took off, I think, out of Bainbridge Island, Wash. It was meant as a gentlemanly game where people didn’t exert themselves too much. The joke is you could play it while holding a drink in one hand. It’s gotten more popular and more competitive. It’s kind of a miniature version of tennis, with a smaller court, a plastic ball, and a wooden paddle. The ball can go back and forth rapidly, but you’re always playing doubles and it doesn’t take as much energy, exertion, and, if you will, fitness as a game like singles tennis.

Pickleball has a downside. The upside is it’s gotten many people outdoors getting some exercise and socializing. That’s all to the good. But a recent study suggested that there are about $500 million worth of injuries coming into the health care system associated with pickleball. There have been leg sprains, broken bones, people getting hit in the eye, hamstring pulls, and many other problems. I’ve been told that many of the spectators who show up for pickleball matches are there with a cast or have some kind of a wrap on because they were injured.

Well, many people have argued in the past about what we are going to do about health care costs. Some suggest if you voluntarily incur health care damage, you ought to pay for that yourself and you ought to have a big copay.

If you decide you’re going to do cross-country skiing or downhill skiing and you injure yourself, you chose to do it, so you pay. If you’re not going to maintain your weight, you’re going to smoke, or you’re going to ride around without a helmet, that’s your choice. You ought to pay.

I think the pickleball example is really a good challenge to these views. You obviously want people to go out and get some exercise. Here, we’re talking about a population that’s a little older and oftentimes doesn’t get out there as much as doctors would like to get the exercise that’s still important that they need, and yet it does incur injuries and problems.

My suggestion would be to make the game a little safer. Let’s try to encourage people to warm up more before they get out there and jump out of the car and engage in their pickleball battles. Goggles might be important to prevent the eye injuries in a game that’s played up close. Maybe we want to make sure that people look out for one another out there. If they think they’re getting dehydrated or tired, they should say, “Let’s sit down.”

I’m not willing to put a tax or a copay on the pickleball players of America. I know they choose to do it. It’s got an upside and benefits, as many things like skiing and other behaviors that have some risk do, but I think we want to be encouraging, not discouraging, of it.

I don’t like a society where anybody who tries to do something that takes risk winds up bearing extra cost for doing that. I understand that that gets people irritated when it comes to dangerous, hyper-risky behavior like smoking and not wearing a motorcycle helmet. I think the way to engage is not to call out the sinner or to try and punish those who are trying to do things that bring them enjoyment, reward, or in some of these cases, physical fitness, but to try to make things safer and try to gradually improve and get rid of the risk side to capture the full benefit side.

I’m not sure I’ve come up with all the best ways to make pickleball safer, but I think that’s where our thinking in health care should go. My view is to get out there and play pickleball. If you do pull your hamstring, raise my insurance premium a little bit. I’ll help to pay for it. Better you get some enjoyment and some exercise.

I get the downside, but come on, folks, we ought to be, as a community, somewhat supportive of the fun and recreation that our fellow citizens engage in.
 

Dr. Caplan is director, division of medical ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center. He disclosed serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position); and as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

If you’re anywhere near Seattle, anywhere near Florida, or anywhere where it might be not oppressively hot outside but encouraging some people who might want to go out and get a little exercise, you’ve undoubtedly seen or heard of pickleball.

This took off, I think, out of Bainbridge Island, Wash. It was meant as a gentlemanly game where people didn’t exert themselves too much. The joke is you could play it while holding a drink in one hand. It’s gotten more popular and more competitive. It’s kind of a miniature version of tennis, with a smaller court, a plastic ball, and a wooden paddle. The ball can go back and forth rapidly, but you’re always playing doubles and it doesn’t take as much energy, exertion, and, if you will, fitness as a game like singles tennis.

Pickleball has a downside. The upside is it’s gotten many people outdoors getting some exercise and socializing. That’s all to the good. But a recent study suggested that there are about $500 million worth of injuries coming into the health care system associated with pickleball. There have been leg sprains, broken bones, people getting hit in the eye, hamstring pulls, and many other problems. I’ve been told that many of the spectators who show up for pickleball matches are there with a cast or have some kind of a wrap on because they were injured.

Well, many people have argued in the past about what we are going to do about health care costs. Some suggest if you voluntarily incur health care damage, you ought to pay for that yourself and you ought to have a big copay.

If you decide you’re going to do cross-country skiing or downhill skiing and you injure yourself, you chose to do it, so you pay. If you’re not going to maintain your weight, you’re going to smoke, or you’re going to ride around without a helmet, that’s your choice. You ought to pay.

I think the pickleball example is really a good challenge to these views. You obviously want people to go out and get some exercise. Here, we’re talking about a population that’s a little older and oftentimes doesn’t get out there as much as doctors would like to get the exercise that’s still important that they need, and yet it does incur injuries and problems.

My suggestion would be to make the game a little safer. Let’s try to encourage people to warm up more before they get out there and jump out of the car and engage in their pickleball battles. Goggles might be important to prevent the eye injuries in a game that’s played up close. Maybe we want to make sure that people look out for one another out there. If they think they’re getting dehydrated or tired, they should say, “Let’s sit down.”

I’m not willing to put a tax or a copay on the pickleball players of America. I know they choose to do it. It’s got an upside and benefits, as many things like skiing and other behaviors that have some risk do, but I think we want to be encouraging, not discouraging, of it.

I don’t like a society where anybody who tries to do something that takes risk winds up bearing extra cost for doing that. I understand that that gets people irritated when it comes to dangerous, hyper-risky behavior like smoking and not wearing a motorcycle helmet. I think the way to engage is not to call out the sinner or to try and punish those who are trying to do things that bring them enjoyment, reward, or in some of these cases, physical fitness, but to try to make things safer and try to gradually improve and get rid of the risk side to capture the full benefit side.

I’m not sure I’ve come up with all the best ways to make pickleball safer, but I think that’s where our thinking in health care should go. My view is to get out there and play pickleball. If you do pull your hamstring, raise my insurance premium a little bit. I’ll help to pay for it. Better you get some enjoyment and some exercise.

I get the downside, but come on, folks, we ought to be, as a community, somewhat supportive of the fun and recreation that our fellow citizens engage in.
 

Dr. Caplan is director, division of medical ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center. He disclosed serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position); and as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

If you’re anywhere near Seattle, anywhere near Florida, or anywhere where it might be not oppressively hot outside but encouraging some people who might want to go out and get a little exercise, you’ve undoubtedly seen or heard of pickleball.

This took off, I think, out of Bainbridge Island, Wash. It was meant as a gentlemanly game where people didn’t exert themselves too much. The joke is you could play it while holding a drink in one hand. It’s gotten more popular and more competitive. It’s kind of a miniature version of tennis, with a smaller court, a plastic ball, and a wooden paddle. The ball can go back and forth rapidly, but you’re always playing doubles and it doesn’t take as much energy, exertion, and, if you will, fitness as a game like singles tennis.

Pickleball has a downside. The upside is it’s gotten many people outdoors getting some exercise and socializing. That’s all to the good. But a recent study suggested that there are about $500 million worth of injuries coming into the health care system associated with pickleball. There have been leg sprains, broken bones, people getting hit in the eye, hamstring pulls, and many other problems. I’ve been told that many of the spectators who show up for pickleball matches are there with a cast or have some kind of a wrap on because they were injured.

Well, many people have argued in the past about what we are going to do about health care costs. Some suggest if you voluntarily incur health care damage, you ought to pay for that yourself and you ought to have a big copay.

If you decide you’re going to do cross-country skiing or downhill skiing and you injure yourself, you chose to do it, so you pay. If you’re not going to maintain your weight, you’re going to smoke, or you’re going to ride around without a helmet, that’s your choice. You ought to pay.

I think the pickleball example is really a good challenge to these views. You obviously want people to go out and get some exercise. Here, we’re talking about a population that’s a little older and oftentimes doesn’t get out there as much as doctors would like to get the exercise that’s still important that they need, and yet it does incur injuries and problems.

My suggestion would be to make the game a little safer. Let’s try to encourage people to warm up more before they get out there and jump out of the car and engage in their pickleball battles. Goggles might be important to prevent the eye injuries in a game that’s played up close. Maybe we want to make sure that people look out for one another out there. If they think they’re getting dehydrated or tired, they should say, “Let’s sit down.”

I’m not willing to put a tax or a copay on the pickleball players of America. I know they choose to do it. It’s got an upside and benefits, as many things like skiing and other behaviors that have some risk do, but I think we want to be encouraging, not discouraging, of it.

I don’t like a society where anybody who tries to do something that takes risk winds up bearing extra cost for doing that. I understand that that gets people irritated when it comes to dangerous, hyper-risky behavior like smoking and not wearing a motorcycle helmet. I think the way to engage is not to call out the sinner or to try and punish those who are trying to do things that bring them enjoyment, reward, or in some of these cases, physical fitness, but to try to make things safer and try to gradually improve and get rid of the risk side to capture the full benefit side.

I’m not sure I’ve come up with all the best ways to make pickleball safer, but I think that’s where our thinking in health care should go. My view is to get out there and play pickleball. If you do pull your hamstring, raise my insurance premium a little bit. I’ll help to pay for it. Better you get some enjoyment and some exercise.

I get the downside, but come on, folks, we ought to be, as a community, somewhat supportive of the fun and recreation that our fellow citizens engage in.
 

Dr. Caplan is director, division of medical ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center. He disclosed serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position); and as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Inflating a drug-coated balloon in the prostate is the latest approach to treating a common cause of frequent or difficult urination in older men.

As the prostate naturally grows with age, the gland can obstruct the flow of urine – leading to frequent trips to the bathroom and disrupted nights. An estimated 50% of men aged 60 years and older have benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). That figure rises to more than 80% by age 70 and to 90% by age 80.

Transurethral resection of the prostate was the main surgical treatment for symptomatic BPH for much of the 20th century.

More recently, researchers have developed various minimally invasive surgical therapy (MIST) devices to treat the obstruction while limiting effects on sexual function. Some newer devices use lasers or water vapor to remove prostate tissue. Another approach uses implants to move and hold prostate tissue out of the way.

Now drug-coated balloons have entered the picture.

With the Optilume BPH catheter system, urologists inflate a balloon to split the lobes of the prostate. A second balloon can further separate the lobes and deliver a drug, paclitaxel – best known as a chemotherapy medication – to limit further growth and keep the lobes apart.

The Food and Drug Administration approved Optilume BPH in June. The results from a randomized controlled trial of the device were published in The Journal of Urology.

Uptake of MIST devices for BPH “has been variable due to a host of factors including mixed results, complexity of equipment, and costs,” the journal’s editor, D. Robert Siemens, MD, noted in the issue.

The developer of the device, Urotronic, said it expects that the newest treatment will be commercially available in the near future. Discussions about cost, insurance coverage, and how to train urologists to use it are ongoing, said Ian Schorn, the company’s vice president of clinical affairs.

Raevti Bole, MD, a urologic surgeon at Cleveland Clinic’s Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, said BPH treatments ideally benefit patients for years, so she is eager to see how patients are doing 5 and 10 years after the Optilume BPH procedure. Studies should also examine its effects on fertility.

But given the safety and efficacy results reported 1 year after treatment, “I think this is something that a lot of people are going to be able to use in their practice and that their patients are going to benefit from,” Dr. Bole told this news organization.

She said she expects most urologists will be able to master the technology. The procedure’s minimal effect on sexual issues and the relatively short time needed to perform it are other advantages.

“All of those things are very positive in terms of whether patients are going to want to consider it and also whether surgeons are going to be able to realistically learn it and offer it at their centers,” Dr. Bole said.

In choosing a particular treatment, Dr. Bole discusses options with patients and takes into account factors such as trial data, the nature and severity of symptoms, treatment goals, comorbidities, and the size of the prostate.

Available MIST devices can vary by institution, and urologists can have different levels of experience with each device. If a patient is interested in an approach a surgeon does not offer, the surgeon can refer the patient to a colleague who does.

 

Active vs. sham treatment

Urologists may be familiar with another Optilume device, the Optilume urethral drug-coated balloon, that is used for urethral strictures.

The devices have similar names, and the underlying technology is similar, but there are major differences, Mr. Schorn said.

The BPH device expands between the lobes of the prostate, creating an anterior commissurotomy. A double-lobe balloon locks the device in place during inflation.

For the PINNACLE trial of the BPH device, which was conducted at 18 sites in the United States and Canada, Steven A. Kaplan, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues enrolled 148 men with symptomatic BPH who were experiencing urinary flow obstruction.

The average age of the patients was 65 years; 100 of them were assigned to undergo active treatment with Optilume BPH. The rest received a sham procedure that mimicked active treatment.

At 3 months, men who received active treatment had an average improvement in the International Prostate Symptom Score of about 11 points. This improvement was maintained at 1 year. Those who received sham treatment experienced an 8-point improvement at 3 months that dissipated over time.

The rate of urine flow increased dramatically with Optilume BPH, the researchers reported.

Five serious adverse events were considered to be possibly related to the device. There were four cases of postprocedural hematuria that required cystoscopic management or extended observation, and one case of urethral false passage that required extended catheterization.

Nonserious adverse events in the men who underwent the Optilume procedure typically resolved in about a month and included hematuria (40%), urinary tract infection (14%), dysuria (9.2%), urge or mixed incontinence (8.2%), mild stress incontinence (7.1%), bladder spasms (6.1%), elevated prostate-specific antigen levels (6.1%), and urinary urgency (6.1%), according to the researchers.

In a subset of participants for whom pharmacokinetic data were available, systemic exposure to paclitaxel was minimal.

Four participants in the Optilume BPH arm (4.1%) reported ejaculatory dysfunction, compared with one man in the sham treatment arm (2.1%). There were no cases of treatment-related erectile dysfunction.

Most patients were treated under deep sedation or general anesthesia, and the average procedure time was 26 minutes.

After the procedure, patients received a Foley catheter, which remained in place for about 2 days, “which is not significantly different from water vapor thermal therapy, holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, or laser photovaporization in similar gland sizes,” Dr. Bole and Petar Bajic, MD, also with Cleveland Clinic, noted in a commentary accompanying the article in The Journal of Urology.

MIST devices can be ideal for patients who prioritize sexual function, but the need for a temporary catheter after the procedure can be a “major postoperative source of patient dissatisfaction,” they acknowledged.

“Consistent with other minimally invasive technologies, the Optilume BPH procedure is a straightforward procedure that can be conducted in an ambulatory or office outpatient setting with pain management at physician and patient discretion,” Dr. Kaplan and his coauthors wrote.

The study was featured on the cover of the journal, which the research team saw as an unusual but welcome spotlight for a treatment for BPH.

“We were thrilled that we got on the cover of The Journal of Urology, which is not a common thing for BPH technology,” Mr. Schorn said.

Urotronic funded the PINNACLE study. Dr. Bole has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Inflating a drug-coated balloon in the prostate is the latest approach to treating a common cause of frequent or difficult urination in older men.

As the prostate naturally grows with age, the gland can obstruct the flow of urine – leading to frequent trips to the bathroom and disrupted nights. An estimated 50% of men aged 60 years and older have benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). That figure rises to more than 80% by age 70 and to 90% by age 80.

Transurethral resection of the prostate was the main surgical treatment for symptomatic BPH for much of the 20th century.

More recently, researchers have developed various minimally invasive surgical therapy (MIST) devices to treat the obstruction while limiting effects on sexual function. Some newer devices use lasers or water vapor to remove prostate tissue. Another approach uses implants to move and hold prostate tissue out of the way.

Now drug-coated balloons have entered the picture.

With the Optilume BPH catheter system, urologists inflate a balloon to split the lobes of the prostate. A second balloon can further separate the lobes and deliver a drug, paclitaxel – best known as a chemotherapy medication – to limit further growth and keep the lobes apart.

The Food and Drug Administration approved Optilume BPH in June. The results from a randomized controlled trial of the device were published in The Journal of Urology.

Uptake of MIST devices for BPH “has been variable due to a host of factors including mixed results, complexity of equipment, and costs,” the journal’s editor, D. Robert Siemens, MD, noted in the issue.

The developer of the device, Urotronic, said it expects that the newest treatment will be commercially available in the near future. Discussions about cost, insurance coverage, and how to train urologists to use it are ongoing, said Ian Schorn, the company’s vice president of clinical affairs.

Raevti Bole, MD, a urologic surgeon at Cleveland Clinic’s Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, said BPH treatments ideally benefit patients for years, so she is eager to see how patients are doing 5 and 10 years after the Optilume BPH procedure. Studies should also examine its effects on fertility.

But given the safety and efficacy results reported 1 year after treatment, “I think this is something that a lot of people are going to be able to use in their practice and that their patients are going to benefit from,” Dr. Bole told this news organization.

She said she expects most urologists will be able to master the technology. The procedure’s minimal effect on sexual issues and the relatively short time needed to perform it are other advantages.

“All of those things are very positive in terms of whether patients are going to want to consider it and also whether surgeons are going to be able to realistically learn it and offer it at their centers,” Dr. Bole said.

In choosing a particular treatment, Dr. Bole discusses options with patients and takes into account factors such as trial data, the nature and severity of symptoms, treatment goals, comorbidities, and the size of the prostate.

Available MIST devices can vary by institution, and urologists can have different levels of experience with each device. If a patient is interested in an approach a surgeon does not offer, the surgeon can refer the patient to a colleague who does.

 

Active vs. sham treatment

Urologists may be familiar with another Optilume device, the Optilume urethral drug-coated balloon, that is used for urethral strictures.

The devices have similar names, and the underlying technology is similar, but there are major differences, Mr. Schorn said.

The BPH device expands between the lobes of the prostate, creating an anterior commissurotomy. A double-lobe balloon locks the device in place during inflation.

For the PINNACLE trial of the BPH device, which was conducted at 18 sites in the United States and Canada, Steven A. Kaplan, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues enrolled 148 men with symptomatic BPH who were experiencing urinary flow obstruction.

The average age of the patients was 65 years; 100 of them were assigned to undergo active treatment with Optilume BPH. The rest received a sham procedure that mimicked active treatment.

At 3 months, men who received active treatment had an average improvement in the International Prostate Symptom Score of about 11 points. This improvement was maintained at 1 year. Those who received sham treatment experienced an 8-point improvement at 3 months that dissipated over time.

The rate of urine flow increased dramatically with Optilume BPH, the researchers reported.

Five serious adverse events were considered to be possibly related to the device. There were four cases of postprocedural hematuria that required cystoscopic management or extended observation, and one case of urethral false passage that required extended catheterization.

Nonserious adverse events in the men who underwent the Optilume procedure typically resolved in about a month and included hematuria (40%), urinary tract infection (14%), dysuria (9.2%), urge or mixed incontinence (8.2%), mild stress incontinence (7.1%), bladder spasms (6.1%), elevated prostate-specific antigen levels (6.1%), and urinary urgency (6.1%), according to the researchers.

In a subset of participants for whom pharmacokinetic data were available, systemic exposure to paclitaxel was minimal.

Four participants in the Optilume BPH arm (4.1%) reported ejaculatory dysfunction, compared with one man in the sham treatment arm (2.1%). There were no cases of treatment-related erectile dysfunction.

Most patients were treated under deep sedation or general anesthesia, and the average procedure time was 26 minutes.

After the procedure, patients received a Foley catheter, which remained in place for about 2 days, “which is not significantly different from water vapor thermal therapy, holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, or laser photovaporization in similar gland sizes,” Dr. Bole and Petar Bajic, MD, also with Cleveland Clinic, noted in a commentary accompanying the article in The Journal of Urology.

MIST devices can be ideal for patients who prioritize sexual function, but the need for a temporary catheter after the procedure can be a “major postoperative source of patient dissatisfaction,” they acknowledged.

“Consistent with other minimally invasive technologies, the Optilume BPH procedure is a straightforward procedure that can be conducted in an ambulatory or office outpatient setting with pain management at physician and patient discretion,” Dr. Kaplan and his coauthors wrote.

The study was featured on the cover of the journal, which the research team saw as an unusual but welcome spotlight for a treatment for BPH.

“We were thrilled that we got on the cover of The Journal of Urology, which is not a common thing for BPH technology,” Mr. Schorn said.

Urotronic funded the PINNACLE study. Dr. Bole has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Inflating a drug-coated balloon in the prostate is the latest approach to treating a common cause of frequent or difficult urination in older men.

As the prostate naturally grows with age, the gland can obstruct the flow of urine – leading to frequent trips to the bathroom and disrupted nights. An estimated 50% of men aged 60 years and older have benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). That figure rises to more than 80% by age 70 and to 90% by age 80.

Transurethral resection of the prostate was the main surgical treatment for symptomatic BPH for much of the 20th century.

More recently, researchers have developed various minimally invasive surgical therapy (MIST) devices to treat the obstruction while limiting effects on sexual function. Some newer devices use lasers or water vapor to remove prostate tissue. Another approach uses implants to move and hold prostate tissue out of the way.

Now drug-coated balloons have entered the picture.

With the Optilume BPH catheter system, urologists inflate a balloon to split the lobes of the prostate. A second balloon can further separate the lobes and deliver a drug, paclitaxel – best known as a chemotherapy medication – to limit further growth and keep the lobes apart.

The Food and Drug Administration approved Optilume BPH in June. The results from a randomized controlled trial of the device were published in The Journal of Urology.

Uptake of MIST devices for BPH “has been variable due to a host of factors including mixed results, complexity of equipment, and costs,” the journal’s editor, D. Robert Siemens, MD, noted in the issue.

The developer of the device, Urotronic, said it expects that the newest treatment will be commercially available in the near future. Discussions about cost, insurance coverage, and how to train urologists to use it are ongoing, said Ian Schorn, the company’s vice president of clinical affairs.

Raevti Bole, MD, a urologic surgeon at Cleveland Clinic’s Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, said BPH treatments ideally benefit patients for years, so she is eager to see how patients are doing 5 and 10 years after the Optilume BPH procedure. Studies should also examine its effects on fertility.

But given the safety and efficacy results reported 1 year after treatment, “I think this is something that a lot of people are going to be able to use in their practice and that their patients are going to benefit from,” Dr. Bole told this news organization.

She said she expects most urologists will be able to master the technology. The procedure’s minimal effect on sexual issues and the relatively short time needed to perform it are other advantages.

“All of those things are very positive in terms of whether patients are going to want to consider it and also whether surgeons are going to be able to realistically learn it and offer it at their centers,” Dr. Bole said.

In choosing a particular treatment, Dr. Bole discusses options with patients and takes into account factors such as trial data, the nature and severity of symptoms, treatment goals, comorbidities, and the size of the prostate.

Available MIST devices can vary by institution, and urologists can have different levels of experience with each device. If a patient is interested in an approach a surgeon does not offer, the surgeon can refer the patient to a colleague who does.

 

Active vs. sham treatment

Urologists may be familiar with another Optilume device, the Optilume urethral drug-coated balloon, that is used for urethral strictures.

The devices have similar names, and the underlying technology is similar, but there are major differences, Mr. Schorn said.

The BPH device expands between the lobes of the prostate, creating an anterior commissurotomy. A double-lobe balloon locks the device in place during inflation.

For the PINNACLE trial of the BPH device, which was conducted at 18 sites in the United States and Canada, Steven A. Kaplan, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues enrolled 148 men with symptomatic BPH who were experiencing urinary flow obstruction.

The average age of the patients was 65 years; 100 of them were assigned to undergo active treatment with Optilume BPH. The rest received a sham procedure that mimicked active treatment.

At 3 months, men who received active treatment had an average improvement in the International Prostate Symptom Score of about 11 points. This improvement was maintained at 1 year. Those who received sham treatment experienced an 8-point improvement at 3 months that dissipated over time.

The rate of urine flow increased dramatically with Optilume BPH, the researchers reported.

Five serious adverse events were considered to be possibly related to the device. There were four cases of postprocedural hematuria that required cystoscopic management or extended observation, and one case of urethral false passage that required extended catheterization.

Nonserious adverse events in the men who underwent the Optilume procedure typically resolved in about a month and included hematuria (40%), urinary tract infection (14%), dysuria (9.2%), urge or mixed incontinence (8.2%), mild stress incontinence (7.1%), bladder spasms (6.1%), elevated prostate-specific antigen levels (6.1%), and urinary urgency (6.1%), according to the researchers.

In a subset of participants for whom pharmacokinetic data were available, systemic exposure to paclitaxel was minimal.

Four participants in the Optilume BPH arm (4.1%) reported ejaculatory dysfunction, compared with one man in the sham treatment arm (2.1%). There were no cases of treatment-related erectile dysfunction.

Most patients were treated under deep sedation or general anesthesia, and the average procedure time was 26 minutes.

After the procedure, patients received a Foley catheter, which remained in place for about 2 days, “which is not significantly different from water vapor thermal therapy, holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, or laser photovaporization in similar gland sizes,” Dr. Bole and Petar Bajic, MD, also with Cleveland Clinic, noted in a commentary accompanying the article in The Journal of Urology.

MIST devices can be ideal for patients who prioritize sexual function, but the need for a temporary catheter after the procedure can be a “major postoperative source of patient dissatisfaction,” they acknowledged.

“Consistent with other minimally invasive technologies, the Optilume BPH procedure is a straightforward procedure that can be conducted in an ambulatory or office outpatient setting with pain management at physician and patient discretion,” Dr. Kaplan and his coauthors wrote.

The study was featured on the cover of the journal, which the research team saw as an unusual but welcome spotlight for a treatment for BPH.

“We were thrilled that we got on the cover of The Journal of Urology, which is not a common thing for BPH technology,” Mr. Schorn said.

Urotronic funded the PINNACLE study. Dr. Bole has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Findings from two recent studies could signal a paradigm shift in the way men are screened for prostate cancer.

In the ReIMAGINE study, a group of researchers from the United Kingdom found that half of men with apparently “safe” levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) below 3 ng/mL had clinically significant prostate cancers when multiparametric MRI was added to screening. The researchers, whose paper appeared in BMJ Oncology, also found that one in six screened men had a prostate lesion on MRI. 

Meanwhile, a large Swedish population-based study, published in JAMA Network Open, showed that pre-biopsy MRIs combined with PSA testing after adoption of guidelines recommending MRIs led to a decrease in the proportion of men with negative biopsies (28% to 7%) and the number of Gleason score 6 cancers (24% to 6%), while the proportion of Gleason score 7-10 cancers rose from 49% to 86%.

Researchers compared prostate MRI uptake rates in the Jönköping Region in southern Sweden over 9 years – 2011 through 2018 before prostate MRIs were recommended nationally, and 2018-2020 when MRIs became commonly used.

David Robinson, MD, PhD, associate professor at Linköping University and leader of the Swedish study, told this news organization: “MRI is now standard for men before biopsy” in that country. In Sweden, which has a high rate of mortality from prostate cancer – about 50 deaths per 100,000 men vs. 12 and 8 per 100,000 in the United Kingdom and United States, respectively – PSA testing is not routine. “Most men that are diagnosed with prostate cancer have no symptoms. They have asked for a PSA when they have visited their general practitioner,” Dr. Robinson said. “To take a PSA test is not encouraged but it is not discouraged either. It is up to each man to decide.”

PSA screening is not common in the United Kingdom. Caroline Moore, MD, chair of urology at University College London and principal investigator on ReIMAGINE, said only 20% of UK men older than age 50 undergo PSA tests because doctors in the United Kingdom are concerned about the sort of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer that has occurred in the United States since the mid-1990s, when PSA screening was adopted here.

The rate of PSA screening in the United States has declined with controversies over recommendations for screening, though they remain above European rates: 37% in 2019, down from 47% in 2005, according to a 2022 Veterans Administration study published in JAMA Oncology.

In the UK study, Dr. Moore’s hospital-based group asked general practitioners to send letters to 2,096 men aged 50-75 years who had not been diagnosed with prostate cancer, inviting them to undergo prostate health checks combining screening with PSA and 10-minute prostate MRIs.

Of the 457 men who responded to the letters, 303 completed both screening tests. Older White men were more likely to respond, and Black men responded 20% less often.

Of the men who completed screening, 29 (9.6%) were diagnosed with clinically significant cancer and 3 were diagnosed with clinically insignificant cancer, the researchers reported.

Dr. Moore said the PSA and MRI-first approach spared men from biopsies as well as the downsides of active surveillance, which include close monitoring with urology visits and occasional MRIs or biopsies over many years. Biopsies are considered undesirable because of pain and the risk for sepsis and other infections associated with transrectal biopsies.

But urologists in America were less convinced by the international data. William J. Catalona, MD, a urologist at Northwestern University in Chicago, who developed the PSA screening test in the 1990s, said he wasn’t surprised so many men in ReIMAGINE with low PSAs had advanced cancers. “Some of the most aggressive prostate cancers occur in men with a low PSA level – not new news,” he said.

Dr. Catalona also disagreed with the UK researchers’ emphasis on MRIs because the readings often are incorrect. A 2021 study in Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases reported that multiparametric MRI had a false-negative rate of between 10% and 20%.

“MRI alone should not be considered more reliable than PSA. Rather, it should be considered complementary,” he said.

Michael S. Leapman, MD, MHS, associate professor of urology at the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said the UK findings point to a role for MRI as a “triage tool” to help identify men with elevated PSAs who should have a prostate biopsy.

But he said the research to date doesn’t support the use of MRI as a stand-alone test for prostate cancer. “In my opinion, it would have to demonstrate some tangible benefit to patients other than finding a greater number of cancers, such as improvement in cancer control, lower burden from the disease overall, or cancer-specific survival,” he said.

Major U.S. guidelines recommend including MRIs before biopsies. Dr. Leapman also pointed out that 2023 recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network state that MRI is “strongly recommended if available.” Yet fewer than half of U.S. urologists use MRIs as a screening tool, he said.

“My sense is that MRI is not available everywhere. We have also seen that wait times are too long in some centers, leading physicians and patients to opt for biopsy – particularly in cases with higher suspicion,” he said.

The studies from Sweden and the United Kingdom “demonstrate the strides being made in reducing overdetection of low-grade prostate cancer will increase detection of clinically significant Gleason 3+4 or higher” tumors, Dr. Leapman said. “It is unclear whether such patients in whom their otherwise low-risk disease is recast as ‘intermediate risk’ meaningfully stand to benefit in the long term from this detection.”

Dr. Robinson reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. The Swedish Cancer Society, the Swedish Research Council, Region Jönköping, Futurum, and Clinical Cancer Research Foundation in Jönköping supported the Swedish study. Members of the ReIMAGINE study team disclosed research support from the United Kingdom’s National Institute of Health Research and various industry/other sources. The Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK funded the ReIMAGINE study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Findings from two recent studies could signal a paradigm shift in the way men are screened for prostate cancer.

In the ReIMAGINE study, a group of researchers from the United Kingdom found that half of men with apparently “safe” levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) below 3 ng/mL had clinically significant prostate cancers when multiparametric MRI was added to screening. The researchers, whose paper appeared in BMJ Oncology, also found that one in six screened men had a prostate lesion on MRI. 

Meanwhile, a large Swedish population-based study, published in JAMA Network Open, showed that pre-biopsy MRIs combined with PSA testing after adoption of guidelines recommending MRIs led to a decrease in the proportion of men with negative biopsies (28% to 7%) and the number of Gleason score 6 cancers (24% to 6%), while the proportion of Gleason score 7-10 cancers rose from 49% to 86%.

Researchers compared prostate MRI uptake rates in the Jönköping Region in southern Sweden over 9 years – 2011 through 2018 before prostate MRIs were recommended nationally, and 2018-2020 when MRIs became commonly used.

David Robinson, MD, PhD, associate professor at Linköping University and leader of the Swedish study, told this news organization: “MRI is now standard for men before biopsy” in that country. In Sweden, which has a high rate of mortality from prostate cancer – about 50 deaths per 100,000 men vs. 12 and 8 per 100,000 in the United Kingdom and United States, respectively – PSA testing is not routine. “Most men that are diagnosed with prostate cancer have no symptoms. They have asked for a PSA when they have visited their general practitioner,” Dr. Robinson said. “To take a PSA test is not encouraged but it is not discouraged either. It is up to each man to decide.”

PSA screening is not common in the United Kingdom. Caroline Moore, MD, chair of urology at University College London and principal investigator on ReIMAGINE, said only 20% of UK men older than age 50 undergo PSA tests because doctors in the United Kingdom are concerned about the sort of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer that has occurred in the United States since the mid-1990s, when PSA screening was adopted here.

The rate of PSA screening in the United States has declined with controversies over recommendations for screening, though they remain above European rates: 37% in 2019, down from 47% in 2005, according to a 2022 Veterans Administration study published in JAMA Oncology.

In the UK study, Dr. Moore’s hospital-based group asked general practitioners to send letters to 2,096 men aged 50-75 years who had not been diagnosed with prostate cancer, inviting them to undergo prostate health checks combining screening with PSA and 10-minute prostate MRIs.

Of the 457 men who responded to the letters, 303 completed both screening tests. Older White men were more likely to respond, and Black men responded 20% less often.

Of the men who completed screening, 29 (9.6%) were diagnosed with clinically significant cancer and 3 were diagnosed with clinically insignificant cancer, the researchers reported.

Dr. Moore said the PSA and MRI-first approach spared men from biopsies as well as the downsides of active surveillance, which include close monitoring with urology visits and occasional MRIs or biopsies over many years. Biopsies are considered undesirable because of pain and the risk for sepsis and other infections associated with transrectal biopsies.

But urologists in America were less convinced by the international data. William J. Catalona, MD, a urologist at Northwestern University in Chicago, who developed the PSA screening test in the 1990s, said he wasn’t surprised so many men in ReIMAGINE with low PSAs had advanced cancers. “Some of the most aggressive prostate cancers occur in men with a low PSA level – not new news,” he said.

Dr. Catalona also disagreed with the UK researchers’ emphasis on MRIs because the readings often are incorrect. A 2021 study in Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases reported that multiparametric MRI had a false-negative rate of between 10% and 20%.

“MRI alone should not be considered more reliable than PSA. Rather, it should be considered complementary,” he said.

Michael S. Leapman, MD, MHS, associate professor of urology at the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said the UK findings point to a role for MRI as a “triage tool” to help identify men with elevated PSAs who should have a prostate biopsy.

But he said the research to date doesn’t support the use of MRI as a stand-alone test for prostate cancer. “In my opinion, it would have to demonstrate some tangible benefit to patients other than finding a greater number of cancers, such as improvement in cancer control, lower burden from the disease overall, or cancer-specific survival,” he said.

Major U.S. guidelines recommend including MRIs before biopsies. Dr. Leapman also pointed out that 2023 recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network state that MRI is “strongly recommended if available.” Yet fewer than half of U.S. urologists use MRIs as a screening tool, he said.

“My sense is that MRI is not available everywhere. We have also seen that wait times are too long in some centers, leading physicians and patients to opt for biopsy – particularly in cases with higher suspicion,” he said.

The studies from Sweden and the United Kingdom “demonstrate the strides being made in reducing overdetection of low-grade prostate cancer will increase detection of clinically significant Gleason 3+4 or higher” tumors, Dr. Leapman said. “It is unclear whether such patients in whom their otherwise low-risk disease is recast as ‘intermediate risk’ meaningfully stand to benefit in the long term from this detection.”

Dr. Robinson reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. The Swedish Cancer Society, the Swedish Research Council, Region Jönköping, Futurum, and Clinical Cancer Research Foundation in Jönköping supported the Swedish study. Members of the ReIMAGINE study team disclosed research support from the United Kingdom’s National Institute of Health Research and various industry/other sources. The Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK funded the ReIMAGINE study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Findings from two recent studies could signal a paradigm shift in the way men are screened for prostate cancer.

In the ReIMAGINE study, a group of researchers from the United Kingdom found that half of men with apparently “safe” levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) below 3 ng/mL had clinically significant prostate cancers when multiparametric MRI was added to screening. The researchers, whose paper appeared in BMJ Oncology, also found that one in six screened men had a prostate lesion on MRI. 

Meanwhile, a large Swedish population-based study, published in JAMA Network Open, showed that pre-biopsy MRIs combined with PSA testing after adoption of guidelines recommending MRIs led to a decrease in the proportion of men with negative biopsies (28% to 7%) and the number of Gleason score 6 cancers (24% to 6%), while the proportion of Gleason score 7-10 cancers rose from 49% to 86%.

Researchers compared prostate MRI uptake rates in the Jönköping Region in southern Sweden over 9 years – 2011 through 2018 before prostate MRIs were recommended nationally, and 2018-2020 when MRIs became commonly used.

David Robinson, MD, PhD, associate professor at Linköping University and leader of the Swedish study, told this news organization: “MRI is now standard for men before biopsy” in that country. In Sweden, which has a high rate of mortality from prostate cancer – about 50 deaths per 100,000 men vs. 12 and 8 per 100,000 in the United Kingdom and United States, respectively – PSA testing is not routine. “Most men that are diagnosed with prostate cancer have no symptoms. They have asked for a PSA when they have visited their general practitioner,” Dr. Robinson said. “To take a PSA test is not encouraged but it is not discouraged either. It is up to each man to decide.”

PSA screening is not common in the United Kingdom. Caroline Moore, MD, chair of urology at University College London and principal investigator on ReIMAGINE, said only 20% of UK men older than age 50 undergo PSA tests because doctors in the United Kingdom are concerned about the sort of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer that has occurred in the United States since the mid-1990s, when PSA screening was adopted here.

The rate of PSA screening in the United States has declined with controversies over recommendations for screening, though they remain above European rates: 37% in 2019, down from 47% in 2005, according to a 2022 Veterans Administration study published in JAMA Oncology.

In the UK study, Dr. Moore’s hospital-based group asked general practitioners to send letters to 2,096 men aged 50-75 years who had not been diagnosed with prostate cancer, inviting them to undergo prostate health checks combining screening with PSA and 10-minute prostate MRIs.

Of the 457 men who responded to the letters, 303 completed both screening tests. Older White men were more likely to respond, and Black men responded 20% less often.

Of the men who completed screening, 29 (9.6%) were diagnosed with clinically significant cancer and 3 were diagnosed with clinically insignificant cancer, the researchers reported.

Dr. Moore said the PSA and MRI-first approach spared men from biopsies as well as the downsides of active surveillance, which include close monitoring with urology visits and occasional MRIs or biopsies over many years. Biopsies are considered undesirable because of pain and the risk for sepsis and other infections associated with transrectal biopsies.

But urologists in America were less convinced by the international data. William J. Catalona, MD, a urologist at Northwestern University in Chicago, who developed the PSA screening test in the 1990s, said he wasn’t surprised so many men in ReIMAGINE with low PSAs had advanced cancers. “Some of the most aggressive prostate cancers occur in men with a low PSA level – not new news,” he said.

Dr. Catalona also disagreed with the UK researchers’ emphasis on MRIs because the readings often are incorrect. A 2021 study in Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases reported that multiparametric MRI had a false-negative rate of between 10% and 20%.

“MRI alone should not be considered more reliable than PSA. Rather, it should be considered complementary,” he said.

Michael S. Leapman, MD, MHS, associate professor of urology at the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said the UK findings point to a role for MRI as a “triage tool” to help identify men with elevated PSAs who should have a prostate biopsy.

But he said the research to date doesn’t support the use of MRI as a stand-alone test for prostate cancer. “In my opinion, it would have to demonstrate some tangible benefit to patients other than finding a greater number of cancers, such as improvement in cancer control, lower burden from the disease overall, or cancer-specific survival,” he said.

Major U.S. guidelines recommend including MRIs before biopsies. Dr. Leapman also pointed out that 2023 recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network state that MRI is “strongly recommended if available.” Yet fewer than half of U.S. urologists use MRIs as a screening tool, he said.

“My sense is that MRI is not available everywhere. We have also seen that wait times are too long in some centers, leading physicians and patients to opt for biopsy – particularly in cases with higher suspicion,” he said.

The studies from Sweden and the United Kingdom “demonstrate the strides being made in reducing overdetection of low-grade prostate cancer will increase detection of clinically significant Gleason 3+4 or higher” tumors, Dr. Leapman said. “It is unclear whether such patients in whom their otherwise low-risk disease is recast as ‘intermediate risk’ meaningfully stand to benefit in the long term from this detection.”

Dr. Robinson reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. The Swedish Cancer Society, the Swedish Research Council, Region Jönköping, Futurum, and Clinical Cancer Research Foundation in Jönköping supported the Swedish study. Members of the ReIMAGINE study team disclosed research support from the United Kingdom’s National Institute of Health Research and various industry/other sources. The Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK funded the ReIMAGINE study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While half the fracture-prevention battle is getting people diagnosed with low bone density, nearly 80% of older Americans who suffer bone breaks are not tested or treated for osteoporosis. Fractures associated with aging and diminished bone mineral density exact an enormous toll on patients’ lives and cost the health care system billions of dollars annually according to Bone Health and Osteoporosis: A Report of the Surgeon General. But current gaps in patient education and bone density screening are huge.

“It’s concerning that older patients at risk for fracture are often not screened to determine their risk factors contributing to osteoporosis and patients are not educated about fracture prevention,” said Meryl S. LeBoff, MD, an endocrinologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and chief of calcium and bone section, and professor of medicine, at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Furthermore, the majority of highest-risk women and men who do have fractures are not screened and they do not receive effective, [Food and Drug Administration]–approved therapies.”

Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

Recent guidelines

Screening with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) is recommended for all women at age 65 and all men at age 70. But the occasion of a fracture in an older person who has not yet met these age thresholds should prompt a bone density assessment.

“Doctors need to stress that one in two women and one in four men over age 50 will have a fracture in their remaining lifetimes,” Dr. LeBoff said. ”Primary care doctors play a critical role in ordering timely bone densitometry for both sexes.

If an older patient has been treated for a fracture, the main goal going forward is to prevent another one, for which the risk is highest in the 2 years after the incident fracture.”

Johns Hopkins Medicine

According to Kendall F. Moseley, MD, clinical director of the division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, “Elderly patients need to understand that a fracture at their age is like a heart attack of the bone,” she said, adding that just as cardiovascular risk factors such as high blood pressure and blood lipids are silent before a stroke or infarction, the bone thinning of old age is also silent.

Endocrinologist Jennifer J. Kelly, DO, director of the metabolic bone program and an associate professor at the University of Vermont Medical Center in Burlington, said a fracture in anyone over age 50 that appears not to have resulted from a traumatic blow, is a compelling reason to order a DEXA exam.

University of Vermont Medicine

UTHealth McGovern Medical School

Fracture management

Whether a senior suffers a traumatic fracture or an osteoporosis-related fragility fracture, older age can impede the healing process in some. Senescence may also increase systemic proinflammatory status, according to Clark and colleagues, writing in Current Osteoporosis Reports.

They called for research to develop more directed treatment options for the elderly population.

Dr. Rianon noted that healing may also be affected by a decrease in muscle mass, which plays a role in holding the bone in place. “But it is still controversial how changing metabolic factors affect bone healing in the elderly.”

However, countered Dr. Kelly, fractures in elderly patients are not necessarily less likely to mend – if osteoporosis is not present. “Many heal very well – it really depends more upon their overall health and medical history. Whether or not a person requires surgery depends more upon the extent of the fracture and if the bone is able to align and heal appropriately without surgery.”

Fracture sites

Spine. According to the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons the earliest and most frequent site of fragility fractures in the elderly is the spine. Most vertebral fracture pain improves within 3 months without specific treatment. A short period of rest, limited analgesic use, and possible back bracing may help as the fractures heal on their own. But if pain is severe and persistent, vertebral augmentation with percutaneous kyphoplasty or vertebroplasty may be an option. These procedures, however, can destabilize surrounding discs because of the greater thickness of the injected cement.

Hip. The most dangerous fractures occur in the hip. These carry at least a 20% risk of death in the first postoperative year and must be treated surgically. Those in the proximal femur, the head, or the femoral neck will usually need hip replacement, but if the break is farther down, it may be repaired with cement, screws, plates, and rods.

Distal radius. Outcomes of wrist fractures may be positive without surgical intervention, according to a recent retrospective analysis from Turkey by Yalin and colleagues. In a comparison of clinical outcomes in seniors aged 70-89 and assigned to cast immobilization or various surgical treatments for distal radius fractures, no statistically significant difference was found in patient-reported disability scores and range of motion values between casting and surgery in the first postoperative year.

Other sites. Fractures in the elderly are not uncommon in the shoulder, distal radius, cubitus, proximal humerus, and humerus. These fractures are often treated without surgery, but nevertheless signal a high risk for additional fractures.

Bone-enhancing medications

Even in the absence of diagnosed low bone density or osteoporosis, anabolic agents such as the synthetic human parathyroid hormones abaloparatide (Tymlos) and teriparatide (Forteo) may be used to help in some cases with a bad healing prognosis and may also be used for people undergoing surgeries such as a spinal fusion, but there are not clinical guidelines. “We receive referrals regularly for this treatment from our orthopedics colleagues, but it is considered an off-label use,” Dr. Kelly said.

The anabolics teriparatide and romosozumab (Evenity) have proved effective in lowering fractures in high-risk older women.

Post fracture

After recovering from a fracture, elderly people are strongly advised to make lifestyle changes to boost bone health and reduce risk of further fractures, said Willy M. Valencia, MD, a geriatrician-endocrinologist at the Cleveland Clinic. Apart from active daily living, he recommends several types of formal exercise to promote bone formation; increase muscle mass, strength, and flexibility; and improve endurance, balance, and gait. The National Institute on Aging outlines suitable exercise programs for seniors.

Cleveland Clinic

“These exercises will help reduce the risk of falling and to avoid more fractures,” he said. “Whether a patient has been exercising before the fracture or not, they may feel some reticence or reluctance to take up exercise afterwards because they’re afraid of having another fracture, but they should understand that their fracture risk increases if they remain sedentary. They should start slowly but they can’t be sitting all day.”

Even before it’s possible to exercise at the healing fracture site, added Dr. Rianon, its advisable to work other areas of the body. “Overall mobility is important, and exercising other parts of the body can stimulate strength and help prevent falling.”

In other postsurgical measures, a bone-friendly diet rich in calcium and vitamin D, as well as supplementation with these vital nutrients, is essential to lower the risk of falling.

Fall prevention is paramount, said Dr. Valencia. While exercise can improve, gait, balance, and endurance, logistical measures may also be necessary. Seniors may have to move to a one-floor domicile with no stairs to negotiate. At the very least, they need to fall-proof their daily lives by upgrading their eyeglasses and home lighting, eliminating obstacles and loose carpets, fixing bannisters, and installing bathroom handrails. Some may need assistive devices for walking, especially outdoors in slippery conditions.

At the end of the day, the role of the primary physician in screening for bone problems before fracture and postsurgical care is key. “Risk factors for osteoporosis and fracture risk must be added to the patient’s chart,” said Dr. Rianon. Added Dr. Moseley. “No matter how busy they are, my hope is that primary care physicians will not put patients’ bone health at the bottom of the clinical agenda.”

While half the fracture-prevention battle is getting people diagnosed with low bone density, nearly 80% of older Americans who suffer bone breaks are not tested or treated for osteoporosis. Fractures associated with aging and diminished bone mineral density exact an enormous toll on patients’ lives and cost the health care system billions of dollars annually according to Bone Health and Osteoporosis: A Report of the Surgeon General. But current gaps in patient education and bone density screening are huge.

“It’s concerning that older patients at risk for fracture are often not screened to determine their risk factors contributing to osteoporosis and patients are not educated about fracture prevention,” said Meryl S. LeBoff, MD, an endocrinologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and chief of calcium and bone section, and professor of medicine, at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Furthermore, the majority of highest-risk women and men who do have fractures are not screened and they do not receive effective, [Food and Drug Administration]–approved therapies.”

Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

Recent guidelines

Screening with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) is recommended for all women at age 65 and all men at age 70. But the occasion of a fracture in an older person who has not yet met these age thresholds should prompt a bone density assessment.

“Doctors need to stress that one in two women and one in four men over age 50 will have a fracture in their remaining lifetimes,” Dr. LeBoff said. ”Primary care doctors play a critical role in ordering timely bone densitometry for both sexes.

If an older patient has been treated for a fracture, the main goal going forward is to prevent another one, for which the risk is highest in the 2 years after the incident fracture.”

Johns Hopkins Medicine

According to Kendall F. Moseley, MD, clinical director of the division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, “Elderly patients need to understand that a fracture at their age is like a heart attack of the bone,” she said, adding that just as cardiovascular risk factors such as high blood pressure and blood lipids are silent before a stroke or infarction, the bone thinning of old age is also silent.

Endocrinologist Jennifer J. Kelly, DO, director of the metabolic bone program and an associate professor at the University of Vermont Medical Center in Burlington, said a fracture in anyone over age 50 that appears not to have resulted from a traumatic blow, is a compelling reason to order a DEXA exam.

University of Vermont Medicine

UTHealth McGovern Medical School

Fracture management

Whether a senior suffers a traumatic fracture or an osteoporosis-related fragility fracture, older age can impede the healing process in some. Senescence may also increase systemic proinflammatory status, according to Clark and colleagues, writing in Current Osteoporosis Reports.

They called for research to develop more directed treatment options for the elderly population.

Dr. Rianon noted that healing may also be affected by a decrease in muscle mass, which plays a role in holding the bone in place. “But it is still controversial how changing metabolic factors affect bone healing in the elderly.”

However, countered Dr. Kelly, fractures in elderly patients are not necessarily less likely to mend – if osteoporosis is not present. “Many heal very well – it really depends more upon their overall health and medical history. Whether or not a person requires surgery depends more upon the extent of the fracture and if the bone is able to align and heal appropriately without surgery.”

Fracture sites

Spine. According to the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons the earliest and most frequent site of fragility fractures in the elderly is the spine. Most vertebral fracture pain improves within 3 months without specific treatment. A short period of rest, limited analgesic use, and possible back bracing may help as the fractures heal on their own. But if pain is severe and persistent, vertebral augmentation with percutaneous kyphoplasty or vertebroplasty may be an option. These procedures, however, can destabilize surrounding discs because of the greater thickness of the injected cement.

Hip. The most dangerous fractures occur in the hip. These carry at least a 20% risk of death in the first postoperative year and must be treated surgically. Those in the proximal femur, the head, or the femoral neck will usually need hip replacement, but if the break is farther down, it may be repaired with cement, screws, plates, and rods.

Distal radius. Outcomes of wrist fractures may be positive without surgical intervention, according to a recent retrospective analysis from Turkey by Yalin and colleagues. In a comparison of clinical outcomes in seniors aged 70-89 and assigned to cast immobilization or various surgical treatments for distal radius fractures, no statistically significant difference was found in patient-reported disability scores and range of motion values between casting and surgery in the first postoperative year.

Other sites. Fractures in the elderly are not uncommon in the shoulder, distal radius, cubitus, proximal humerus, and humerus. These fractures are often treated without surgery, but nevertheless signal a high risk for additional fractures.

Bone-enhancing medications

Even in the absence of diagnosed low bone density or osteoporosis, anabolic agents such as the synthetic human parathyroid hormones abaloparatide (Tymlos) and teriparatide (Forteo) may be used to help in some cases with a bad healing prognosis and may also be used for people undergoing surgeries such as a spinal fusion, but there are not clinical guidelines. “We receive referrals regularly for this treatment from our orthopedics colleagues, but it is considered an off-label use,” Dr. Kelly said.

The anabolics teriparatide and romosozumab (Evenity) have proved effective in lowering fractures in high-risk older women.

Post fracture

After recovering from a fracture, elderly people are strongly advised to make lifestyle changes to boost bone health and reduce risk of further fractures, said Willy M. Valencia, MD, a geriatrician-endocrinologist at the Cleveland Clinic. Apart from active daily living, he recommends several types of formal exercise to promote bone formation; increase muscle mass, strength, and flexibility; and improve endurance, balance, and gait. The National Institute on Aging outlines suitable exercise programs for seniors.

Cleveland Clinic

“These exercises will help reduce the risk of falling and to avoid more fractures,” he said. “Whether a patient has been exercising before the fracture or not, they may feel some reticence or reluctance to take up exercise afterwards because they’re afraid of having another fracture, but they should understand that their fracture risk increases if they remain sedentary. They should start slowly but they can’t be sitting all day.”

Even before it’s possible to exercise at the healing fracture site, added Dr. Rianon, its advisable to work other areas of the body. “Overall mobility is important, and exercising other parts of the body can stimulate strength and help prevent falling.”

In other postsurgical measures, a bone-friendly diet rich in calcium and vitamin D, as well as supplementation with these vital nutrients, is essential to lower the risk of falling.

Fall prevention is paramount, said Dr. Valencia. While exercise can improve, gait, balance, and endurance, logistical measures may also be necessary. Seniors may have to move to a one-floor domicile with no stairs to negotiate. At the very least, they need to fall-proof their daily lives by upgrading their eyeglasses and home lighting, eliminating obstacles and loose carpets, fixing bannisters, and installing bathroom handrails. Some may need assistive devices for walking, especially outdoors in slippery conditions.

At the end of the day, the role of the primary physician in screening for bone problems before fracture and postsurgical care is key. “Risk factors for osteoporosis and fracture risk must be added to the patient’s chart,” said Dr. Rianon. Added Dr. Moseley. “No matter how busy they are, my hope is that primary care physicians will not put patients’ bone health at the bottom of the clinical agenda.”

While half the fracture-prevention battle is getting people diagnosed with low bone density, nearly 80% of older Americans who suffer bone breaks are not tested or treated for osteoporosis. Fractures associated with aging and diminished bone mineral density exact an enormous toll on patients’ lives and cost the health care system billions of dollars annually according to Bone Health and Osteoporosis: A Report of the Surgeon General. But current gaps in patient education and bone density screening are huge.

“It’s concerning that older patients at risk for fracture are often not screened to determine their risk factors contributing to osteoporosis and patients are not educated about fracture prevention,” said Meryl S. LeBoff, MD, an endocrinologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and chief of calcium and bone section, and professor of medicine, at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Furthermore, the majority of highest-risk women and men who do have fractures are not screened and they do not receive effective, [Food and Drug Administration]–approved therapies.”

Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

Recent guidelines

Screening with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) is recommended for all women at age 65 and all men at age 70. But the occasion of a fracture in an older person who has not yet met these age thresholds should prompt a bone density assessment.

“Doctors need to stress that one in two women and one in four men over age 50 will have a fracture in their remaining lifetimes,” Dr. LeBoff said. ”Primary care doctors play a critical role in ordering timely bone densitometry for both sexes.

If an older patient has been treated for a fracture, the main goal going forward is to prevent another one, for which the risk is highest in the 2 years after the incident fracture.”

Johns Hopkins Medicine

According to Kendall F. Moseley, MD, clinical director of the division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, “Elderly patients need to understand that a fracture at their age is like a heart attack of the bone,” she said, adding that just as cardiovascular risk factors such as high blood pressure and blood lipids are silent before a stroke or infarction, the bone thinning of old age is also silent.

Endocrinologist Jennifer J. Kelly, DO, director of the metabolic bone program and an associate professor at the University of Vermont Medical Center in Burlington, said a fracture in anyone over age 50 that appears not to have resulted from a traumatic blow, is a compelling reason to order a DEXA exam.

University of Vermont Medicine

UTHealth McGovern Medical School

Fracture management

Whether a senior suffers a traumatic fracture or an osteoporosis-related fragility fracture, older age can impede the healing process in some. Senescence may also increase systemic proinflammatory status, according to Clark and colleagues, writing in Current Osteoporosis Reports.

They called for research to develop more directed treatment options for the elderly population.

Dr. Rianon noted that healing may also be affected by a decrease in muscle mass, which plays a role in holding the bone in place. “But it is still controversial how changing metabolic factors affect bone healing in the elderly.”

However, countered Dr. Kelly, fractures in elderly patients are not necessarily less likely to mend – if osteoporosis is not present. “Many heal very well – it really depends more upon their overall health and medical history. Whether or not a person requires surgery depends more upon the extent of the fracture and if the bone is able to align and heal appropriately without surgery.”

Fracture sites

Spine. According to the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons the earliest and most frequent site of fragility fractures in the elderly is the spine. Most vertebral fracture pain improves within 3 months without specific treatment. A short period of rest, limited analgesic use, and possible back bracing may help as the fractures heal on their own. But if pain is severe and persistent, vertebral augmentation with percutaneous kyphoplasty or vertebroplasty may be an option. These procedures, however, can destabilize surrounding discs because of the greater thickness of the injected cement.

Hip. The most dangerous fractures occur in the hip. These carry at least a 20% risk of death in the first postoperative year and must be treated surgically. Those in the proximal femur, the head, or the femoral neck will usually need hip replacement, but if the break is farther down, it may be repaired with cement, screws, plates, and rods.

Distal radius. Outcomes of wrist fractures may be positive without surgical intervention, according to a recent retrospective analysis from Turkey by Yalin and colleagues. In a comparison of clinical outcomes in seniors aged 70-89 and assigned to cast immobilization or various surgical treatments for distal radius fractures, no statistically significant difference was found in patient-reported disability scores and range of motion values between casting and surgery in the first postoperative year.

Other sites. Fractures in the elderly are not uncommon in the shoulder, distal radius, cubitus, proximal humerus, and humerus. These fractures are often treated without surgery, but nevertheless signal a high risk for additional fractures.

Bone-enhancing medications

Even in the absence of diagnosed low bone density or osteoporosis, anabolic agents such as the synthetic human parathyroid hormones abaloparatide (Tymlos) and teriparatide (Forteo) may be used to help in some cases with a bad healing prognosis and may also be used for people undergoing surgeries such as a spinal fusion, but there are not clinical guidelines. “We receive referrals regularly for this treatment from our orthopedics colleagues, but it is considered an off-label use,” Dr. Kelly said.

The anabolics teriparatide and romosozumab (Evenity) have proved effective in lowering fractures in high-risk older women.

Post fracture

After recovering from a fracture, elderly people are strongly advised to make lifestyle changes to boost bone health and reduce risk of further fractures, said Willy M. Valencia, MD, a geriatrician-endocrinologist at the Cleveland Clinic. Apart from active daily living, he recommends several types of formal exercise to promote bone formation; increase muscle mass, strength, and flexibility; and improve endurance, balance, and gait. The National Institute on Aging outlines suitable exercise programs for seniors.

Cleveland Clinic

“These exercises will help reduce the risk of falling and to avoid more fractures,” he said. “Whether a patient has been exercising before the fracture or not, they may feel some reticence or reluctance to take up exercise afterwards because they’re afraid of having another fracture, but they should understand that their fracture risk increases if they remain sedentary. They should start slowly but they can’t be sitting all day.”

Even before it’s possible to exercise at the healing fracture site, added Dr. Rianon, its advisable to work other areas of the body. “Overall mobility is important, and exercising other parts of the body can stimulate strength and help prevent falling.”

In other postsurgical measures, a bone-friendly diet rich in calcium and vitamin D, as well as supplementation with these vital nutrients, is essential to lower the risk of falling.

Fall prevention is paramount, said Dr. Valencia. While exercise can improve, gait, balance, and endurance, logistical measures may also be necessary. Seniors may have to move to a one-floor domicile with no stairs to negotiate. At the very least, they need to fall-proof their daily lives by upgrading their eyeglasses and home lighting, eliminating obstacles and loose carpets, fixing bannisters, and installing bathroom handrails. Some may need assistive devices for walking, especially outdoors in slippery conditions.

At the end of the day, the role of the primary physician in screening for bone problems before fracture and postsurgical care is key. “Risk factors for osteoporosis and fracture risk must be added to the patient’s chart,” said Dr. Rianon. Added Dr. Moseley. “No matter how busy they are, my hope is that primary care physicians will not put patients’ bone health at the bottom of the clinical agenda.”

TOPLINE:

Nearly 600 million people worldwide (7.6% of the world’s population) have osteoarthritis, and numbers are expected to rise starkly by 2050, especially knee/hip disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers estimated the prevalence of osteoarthritis in 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2020 and projected prevalence levels for the year 2050.
• Population-based surveys offered data from 26 countries for knee osteoarthritis, 23 countries for hip osteoarthritis, and 42 countries for hand osteoarthritis. Researchers used U.S. insurance claims to estimate prevalence for other osteoarthritis types.
• Similar analyses were conducted in 2010 and 2017.

TAKEAWAY:

• Osteoarthritis cases worldwide have grown by an estimated 132.2% since 1990. Population growth and aging were identified as major contributing factors.
• In 2020, an estimated 595 million people had osteoarthritis. From 2020 to 2050, cases of osteoarthritis in the knee are expected to grow by 74.9%, in the hand by 48.6%, in the hip by 78.6%, and in other locations by 95.1%.  
• Years lived with disability (age-standardized rate) grew from an estimated 233 per 100,000 in 1990 to 255 per 100,000 in 2020, an increase of 9.5%.
• High body mass index contributed to 20.4% of cases.

IN PRACTICE:

In “a major challenge to health systems,” osteoarthritis may affect nearly 1 billion people in 2050.

SOURCE:

The Global Burden of Disease 2021 Osteoarthritis Collaborators, led by Jaimie D. Steinmetz, PhD, MSc, of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Seattle, conducted the study, which was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limited data, heavy reliance on U.S. insurance data, and other factors may have skewed the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Institute of Bone and Joint Research, and the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health. Multiple authors reported numerous disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Nearly 600 million people worldwide (7.6% of the world’s population) have osteoarthritis, and numbers are expected to rise starkly by 2050, especially knee/hip disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers estimated the prevalence of osteoarthritis in 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2020 and projected prevalence levels for the year 2050.
• Population-based surveys offered data from 26 countries for knee osteoarthritis, 23 countries for hip osteoarthritis, and 42 countries for hand osteoarthritis. Researchers used U.S. insurance claims to estimate prevalence for other osteoarthritis types.
• Similar analyses were conducted in 2010 and 2017.

TAKEAWAY:

• Osteoarthritis cases worldwide have grown by an estimated 132.2% since 1990. Population growth and aging were identified as major contributing factors.
• In 2020, an estimated 595 million people had osteoarthritis. From 2020 to 2050, cases of osteoarthritis in the knee are expected to grow by 74.9%, in the hand by 48.6%, in the hip by 78.6%, and in other locations by 95.1%.  
• Years lived with disability (age-standardized rate) grew from an estimated 233 per 100,000 in 1990 to 255 per 100,000 in 2020, an increase of 9.5%.
• High body mass index contributed to 20.4% of cases.

IN PRACTICE:

In “a major challenge to health systems,” osteoarthritis may affect nearly 1 billion people in 2050.

SOURCE:

The Global Burden of Disease 2021 Osteoarthritis Collaborators, led by Jaimie D. Steinmetz, PhD, MSc, of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Seattle, conducted the study, which was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limited data, heavy reliance on U.S. insurance data, and other factors may have skewed the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Institute of Bone and Joint Research, and the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health. Multiple authors reported numerous disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Nearly 600 million people worldwide (7.6% of the world’s population) have osteoarthritis, and numbers are expected to rise starkly by 2050, especially knee/hip disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers estimated the prevalence of osteoarthritis in 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2020 and projected prevalence levels for the year 2050.
• Population-based surveys offered data from 26 countries for knee osteoarthritis, 23 countries for hip osteoarthritis, and 42 countries for hand osteoarthritis. Researchers used U.S. insurance claims to estimate prevalence for other osteoarthritis types.
• Similar analyses were conducted in 2010 and 2017.

TAKEAWAY:

• Osteoarthritis cases worldwide have grown by an estimated 132.2% since 1990. Population growth and aging were identified as major contributing factors.
• In 2020, an estimated 595 million people had osteoarthritis. From 2020 to 2050, cases of osteoarthritis in the knee are expected to grow by 74.9%, in the hand by 48.6%, in the hip by 78.6%, and in other locations by 95.1%.  
• Years lived with disability (age-standardized rate) grew from an estimated 233 per 100,000 in 1990 to 255 per 100,000 in 2020, an increase of 9.5%.
• High body mass index contributed to 20.4% of cases.

IN PRACTICE:

In “a major challenge to health systems,” osteoarthritis may affect nearly 1 billion people in 2050.

SOURCE:

The Global Burden of Disease 2021 Osteoarthritis Collaborators, led by Jaimie D. Steinmetz, PhD, MSc, of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Seattle, conducted the study, which was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limited data, heavy reliance on U.S. insurance data, and other factors may have skewed the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Institute of Bone and Joint Research, and the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health. Multiple authors reported numerous disclosures.

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

One of the hardest tasks of a clinician is applying evidence from trials to the person in your office. At the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, the surprising and unexpected results of the FRAIL-AF trial confirm the massive challenge of evidence translation.

FRAIL-AF investigators set out to study the question of whether frail, elderly patients with atrial fibrillation who were doing well with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) should be switched to direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC).

Senior author Geert-Jan Geersing, MD, PhD, from the University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), told me that frustration led him to design this study. He was frustrated that colleagues assumed that evidence in nonfrail patients can always be translated to frail patients. 

Dr. Geersing offered two reasons why common wisdom may be wrong. First was that the large DOAC versus warfarin trials included few elderly patients with frailty. Second, first author Linda Joosten, MD, made it clear in her presentation that frailty is a lot more than aging. It is a clinical syndrome, which entails a “high burden of comorbidities, dependency on others, and a reduced ability to resist stressors.”
 

The FRAIL-AF trial

The investigators recruited elderly, frail patients with fibrillation who were treated with VKAs and had stable international normalized ratios from outpatient clinics throughout the Netherlands. They screened about 2,600 patients and enrolled nearly 1,400. Most were excluded for not being frail.

Half the group was randomized to switching to a DOAC – drug choice was left to the treating clinician – and the other half remained on VKAs. Patients were 83 years of age on average with a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4. All four classes of DOAC were used in the switching arm.

The primary endpoint was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, whichever came first, accounting for death as a competing risk. Follow-up was 1 year.
 

The results for switching to DOAC vs. VKA

Dr. Joosten started her presentation with this: “The results turned out to be different than we expected.” The authors designed the trial with the idea that switching to DOACs would be superior in safety to remaining on VKAs.

But the trial was halted after an interim analysis found a rate of major bleeding in the switching arm of 15.3% versus 9.4% in the arm staying on VKA (hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.32; P = .0012).

The Kaplan-Meier event curves reveal that the excess risk of bleeding occurred after 100 days and increased with time. This argued against an early effect from transitioning the drugs.

An analysis looking at specific DOAC drugs revealed similar hazards for the two most common ones used – apixaban and rivaroxaban.

Thrombotic events were a secondary endpoint and were low in absolute numbers, 2.4% versus 2.0%, for remaining on VKA and switching to DOAC, respectively (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.60-2.61).

The time in therapeutic range in FRAIL-AF was similar to that in the seminal DOAC trials.
 

Comments

Three reasons lead me to choose FRAIL-AF as the most important study from the 2023 ESC congress.

First is the specific lesson about switching drugs. Note that FRAIL-AF did not address the question of starting anticoagulation. The trial results show that if you have a frail older patient who is doing well on VKA, don’t change to a DOAC. That is important to know, but it is not what gives this study its heft.

The second reason centers on the investigators choice to do this trial. Dr. Geersing had a feeling that common wisdom was wrong. He did not try to persuade colleagues with anecdote or plausibility or meta-analyses of observational studies. He set out to answer a question in the correct way – with a randomized trial.

This is the path forward in medicine. I’ve often heard proponents of observational research declare that many topics in medicine cannot be studied with trials. I could hear people arguing that it’s not feasible to study mostly home-bound, elderly frail patients. And the fact that there exist so few trials in this space would support that argument.

But the FRAIL-AF authors showed that it is possible. This is the kind of science that medicine should celebrate. There were no soft endpoints, financial conflicts, or spin. If medical science had science as its incentive, rather than attention, FRAIL-AF easily wins top honors.

The third reason FRAIL-AF is so important is that it teaches us the humility required in translating evidence in our clinics. I like to say evidence is what separates doctors from palm readers. But using this evidence requires thinking hard about how average effects in trial environments apply to our patient.

Yes, of course, there is clear evidence from tens of thousands of patients in the DOAC versus warfarin trials, that, for those patients, on average, DOACs compare favorably with VKA. The average age of patients in these trials was 70-73 years; the average age in FRAIL-AF was 83 years. And that is just age. A substudy of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial found that only 360 of more than 20,000 patients in the trial had severe frailty.

FRAIL-AF clearly shows how cautious we should be in applying evidence gathered in younger, healthier patients to older, more vulnerable patients. That lesson extends to nearly every common therapy in medicine today. It also casts great doubt on the soft-thinking idea of using evidence from trials to derive quality metrics. As if the nuance of evidence translation can be captured in an electronic health record.

The skillful use of evidence will be one of the main challenges of the next generation of clinicians. Thanks to advances in medical science, more patients will live long enough to become frail. And the so-called “guideline-directed” therapies may not apply to them.

Dr. Joosten, Dr. Geersing, and the FRAIL-AF team have taught us specific lessons about anticoagulation, but their greatest contribution has been to demonstrate the value of humility in science and the practice of evidence-based medicine.

If you treat patients, no trial at this meeting is more important.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

One of the hardest tasks of a clinician is applying evidence from trials to the person in your office. At the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, the surprising and unexpected results of the FRAIL-AF trial confirm the massive challenge of evidence translation.

FRAIL-AF investigators set out to study the question of whether frail, elderly patients with atrial fibrillation who were doing well with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) should be switched to direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC).

Senior author Geert-Jan Geersing, MD, PhD, from the University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), told me that frustration led him to design this study. He was frustrated that colleagues assumed that evidence in nonfrail patients can always be translated to frail patients. 

Dr. Geersing offered two reasons why common wisdom may be wrong. First was that the large DOAC versus warfarin trials included few elderly patients with frailty. Second, first author Linda Joosten, MD, made it clear in her presentation that frailty is a lot more than aging. It is a clinical syndrome, which entails a “high burden of comorbidities, dependency on others, and a reduced ability to resist stressors.”
 

The FRAIL-AF trial

The investigators recruited elderly, frail patients with fibrillation who were treated with VKAs and had stable international normalized ratios from outpatient clinics throughout the Netherlands. They screened about 2,600 patients and enrolled nearly 1,400. Most were excluded for not being frail.

Half the group was randomized to switching to a DOAC – drug choice was left to the treating clinician – and the other half remained on VKAs. Patients were 83 years of age on average with a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4. All four classes of DOAC were used in the switching arm.

The primary endpoint was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, whichever came first, accounting for death as a competing risk. Follow-up was 1 year.
 

The results for switching to DOAC vs. VKA

Dr. Joosten started her presentation with this: “The results turned out to be different than we expected.” The authors designed the trial with the idea that switching to DOACs would be superior in safety to remaining on VKAs.

But the trial was halted after an interim analysis found a rate of major bleeding in the switching arm of 15.3% versus 9.4% in the arm staying on VKA (hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.32; P = .0012).

The Kaplan-Meier event curves reveal that the excess risk of bleeding occurred after 100 days and increased with time. This argued against an early effect from transitioning the drugs.

An analysis looking at specific DOAC drugs revealed similar hazards for the two most common ones used – apixaban and rivaroxaban.

Thrombotic events were a secondary endpoint and were low in absolute numbers, 2.4% versus 2.0%, for remaining on VKA and switching to DOAC, respectively (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.60-2.61).

The time in therapeutic range in FRAIL-AF was similar to that in the seminal DOAC trials.
 

Comments

Three reasons lead me to choose FRAIL-AF as the most important study from the 2023 ESC congress.

First is the specific lesson about switching drugs. Note that FRAIL-AF did not address the question of starting anticoagulation. The trial results show that if you have a frail older patient who is doing well on VKA, don’t change to a DOAC. That is important to know, but it is not what gives this study its heft.

The second reason centers on the investigators choice to do this trial. Dr. Geersing had a feeling that common wisdom was wrong. He did not try to persuade colleagues with anecdote or plausibility or meta-analyses of observational studies. He set out to answer a question in the correct way – with a randomized trial.

This is the path forward in medicine. I’ve often heard proponents of observational research declare that many topics in medicine cannot be studied with trials. I could hear people arguing that it’s not feasible to study mostly home-bound, elderly frail patients. And the fact that there exist so few trials in this space would support that argument.

But the FRAIL-AF authors showed that it is possible. This is the kind of science that medicine should celebrate. There were no soft endpoints, financial conflicts, or spin. If medical science had science as its incentive, rather than attention, FRAIL-AF easily wins top honors.

The third reason FRAIL-AF is so important is that it teaches us the humility required in translating evidence in our clinics. I like to say evidence is what separates doctors from palm readers. But using this evidence requires thinking hard about how average effects in trial environments apply to our patient.

Yes, of course, there is clear evidence from tens of thousands of patients in the DOAC versus warfarin trials, that, for those patients, on average, DOACs compare favorably with VKA. The average age of patients in these trials was 70-73 years; the average age in FRAIL-AF was 83 years. And that is just age. A substudy of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial found that only 360 of more than 20,000 patients in the trial had severe frailty.

FRAIL-AF clearly shows how cautious we should be in applying evidence gathered in younger, healthier patients to older, more vulnerable patients. That lesson extends to nearly every common therapy in medicine today. It also casts great doubt on the soft-thinking idea of using evidence from trials to derive quality metrics. As if the nuance of evidence translation can be captured in an electronic health record.

The skillful use of evidence will be one of the main challenges of the next generation of clinicians. Thanks to advances in medical science, more patients will live long enough to become frail. And the so-called “guideline-directed” therapies may not apply to them.

Dr. Joosten, Dr. Geersing, and the FRAIL-AF team have taught us specific lessons about anticoagulation, but their greatest contribution has been to demonstrate the value of humility in science and the practice of evidence-based medicine.

If you treat patients, no trial at this meeting is more important.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

One of the hardest tasks of a clinician is applying evidence from trials to the person in your office. At the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, the surprising and unexpected results of the FRAIL-AF trial confirm the massive challenge of evidence translation.

FRAIL-AF investigators set out to study the question of whether frail, elderly patients with atrial fibrillation who were doing well with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) should be switched to direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC).

Senior author Geert-Jan Geersing, MD, PhD, from the University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), told me that frustration led him to design this study. He was frustrated that colleagues assumed that evidence in nonfrail patients can always be translated to frail patients. 

Dr. Geersing offered two reasons why common wisdom may be wrong. First was that the large DOAC versus warfarin trials included few elderly patients with frailty. Second, first author Linda Joosten, MD, made it clear in her presentation that frailty is a lot more than aging. It is a clinical syndrome, which entails a “high burden of comorbidities, dependency on others, and a reduced ability to resist stressors.”
 

The FRAIL-AF trial

The investigators recruited elderly, frail patients with fibrillation who were treated with VKAs and had stable international normalized ratios from outpatient clinics throughout the Netherlands. They screened about 2,600 patients and enrolled nearly 1,400. Most were excluded for not being frail.

Half the group was randomized to switching to a DOAC – drug choice was left to the treating clinician – and the other half remained on VKAs. Patients were 83 years of age on average with a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4. All four classes of DOAC were used in the switching arm.

The primary endpoint was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, whichever came first, accounting for death as a competing risk. Follow-up was 1 year.
 

The results for switching to DOAC vs. VKA

Dr. Joosten started her presentation with this: “The results turned out to be different than we expected.” The authors designed the trial with the idea that switching to DOACs would be superior in safety to remaining on VKAs.

But the trial was halted after an interim analysis found a rate of major bleeding in the switching arm of 15.3% versus 9.4% in the arm staying on VKA (hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.32; P = .0012).

The Kaplan-Meier event curves reveal that the excess risk of bleeding occurred after 100 days and increased with time. This argued against an early effect from transitioning the drugs.

An analysis looking at specific DOAC drugs revealed similar hazards for the two most common ones used – apixaban and rivaroxaban.

Thrombotic events were a secondary endpoint and were low in absolute numbers, 2.4% versus 2.0%, for remaining on VKA and switching to DOAC, respectively (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.60-2.61).

The time in therapeutic range in FRAIL-AF was similar to that in the seminal DOAC trials.
 

Comments

Three reasons lead me to choose FRAIL-AF as the most important study from the 2023 ESC congress.

First is the specific lesson about switching drugs. Note that FRAIL-AF did not address the question of starting anticoagulation. The trial results show that if you have a frail older patient who is doing well on VKA, don’t change to a DOAC. That is important to know, but it is not what gives this study its heft.

The second reason centers on the investigators choice to do this trial. Dr. Geersing had a feeling that common wisdom was wrong. He did not try to persuade colleagues with anecdote or plausibility or meta-analyses of observational studies. He set out to answer a question in the correct way – with a randomized trial.

This is the path forward in medicine. I’ve often heard proponents of observational research declare that many topics in medicine cannot be studied with trials. I could hear people arguing that it’s not feasible to study mostly home-bound, elderly frail patients. And the fact that there exist so few trials in this space would support that argument.

But the FRAIL-AF authors showed that it is possible. This is the kind of science that medicine should celebrate. There were no soft endpoints, financial conflicts, or spin. If medical science had science as its incentive, rather than attention, FRAIL-AF easily wins top honors.

The third reason FRAIL-AF is so important is that it teaches us the humility required in translating evidence in our clinics. I like to say evidence is what separates doctors from palm readers. But using this evidence requires thinking hard about how average effects in trial environments apply to our patient.

Yes, of course, there is clear evidence from tens of thousands of patients in the DOAC versus warfarin trials, that, for those patients, on average, DOACs compare favorably with VKA. The average age of patients in these trials was 70-73 years; the average age in FRAIL-AF was 83 years. And that is just age. A substudy of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial found that only 360 of more than 20,000 patients in the trial had severe frailty.

FRAIL-AF clearly shows how cautious we should be in applying evidence gathered in younger, healthier patients to older, more vulnerable patients. That lesson extends to nearly every common therapy in medicine today. It also casts great doubt on the soft-thinking idea of using evidence from trials to derive quality metrics. As if the nuance of evidence translation can be captured in an electronic health record.

The skillful use of evidence will be one of the main challenges of the next generation of clinicians. Thanks to advances in medical science, more patients will live long enough to become frail. And the so-called “guideline-directed” therapies may not apply to them.

Dr. Joosten, Dr. Geersing, and the FRAIL-AF team have taught us specific lessons about anticoagulation, but their greatest contribution has been to demonstrate the value of humility in science and the practice of evidence-based medicine.

If you treat patients, no trial at this meeting is more important.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

For many years, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was thought of as a disorder of childhood; however, it is now increasingly being recognized as a chronic, lifelong disorder that persists into adulthood in approximately two-thirds of patients.¹ While our knowledge about ADHD in adults has increased, most research in this population focused on young or middle-aged adults; less is known about ADHD in older adults. Older adults with ADHD may be newly diagnosed at any point in their lives, or not at all.² Because ADHD may present differently in older adults than in children or young adults, and because it may impair domains of life in different ways, a closer look at late-life ADHD is needed. This article summarizes the literature on the prevalence, impairment, diagnosis, and treatment of ADHD in adults age >60.

Challenges in determining the prevalence

Few studies have examined the age-specific prevalence of ADHD among older adults.³ Compared with childhood ADHD, adult ADHD is relatively neglected in epidemiological studies, largely due to the absence of well-established, validated diagnostic criteria.^1,4 Some experts have noted that DSM-5’s ADHD criteria were designed for diagnosing children, and the children-focused symptom threshold may not be useful for adults because ADHD symptoms decline substantially with age.² One study evaluating DSM-5 ADHD criteria in young adults (N = 4,000, age 18 to 19) found ADHD was better diagnosed when the required number of clinically relevant inattention and hyperactivity symptoms was reduced from 6 to 5 for each category.⁵ They also found the DSM-5 age-at-onset criterion of symptoms present before age 12 had a significant effect on ADHD prevalence, reducing the rate from 23.7% (95% CI, 22.38 to 25.02) to 5.4% (95% CI, 13.99 to 16.21).⁵ This suggests that strict usage of DSM-5 criteria may underestimate the prevalence of ADHD in adults, because ADHD symptoms may not be detected in childhood, or self-reporting of childhood ADHD symptoms in older adults may be unreliable due to aging processes that compromise memory and recall. These findings also indicate that fewer ADHD symptoms are needed to impair functioning in older age.

Determining the prevalence of ADHD among older adults is further complicated by individuals who report symptoms consistent with an ADHD diagnosis despite having never received this diagnosis during childhood.^6-8 This may be due to the considerable number of children who meet ADHD criteria but do not get a diagnosis due to limited access to health care.⁹ Thus, many studies separately analyze the syndromatic (with a childhood onset) and symptomatic (regardless of childhood onset) persistence of ADHD. One epidemiological meta-analysis found the 2020 prevalence of syndromatic ADHD in adults age >60 was 0.77% and the prevalence of symptomatic ADHD was 4.51%, which translates to 7.91 million and 46.36 million affected older adults, respectively.⁸ Other research has reported higher rates among older adults.^6,7,10 The variations among this research may be attributed to the use of different diagnostic tools/criteria, study populations, sampling methods, or DSM versions. Heterogeneity among this research also further supports the idea that the prevalence of ADHD is heavily dependent on how one defines and diagnoses the disorder.

Reasons for late-life ADHD diagnosis

There are many reasons a patient may not be diagnosed with ADHD until they are an older adult.¹¹ In addition to socioeconomic barriers to health care access, members of different ethnic groups exhibit differences in help-seeking behaviors; children may belong to a culture that does not traditionally seek health care even when symptoms are evident.^6,9 Therefore, individuals may not receive a diagnosis until adulthood. Some experts have discussed the similarity of ADHD to other neurodevelopmental disorders, such as autism spectrum disorder or social communication disorder, where ADHD symptoms may not manifest until stressors at critical points in life exceed an individual’s capacity to compensate.²

The life transition model contextualizes ADHD as being associated with demand/resource imbalances that come and go throughout life, resulting in variability in the degree of functional impairment ADHD symptoms cause in older adults.^2,12 Hypothetically, events in late life—such as the death of a spouse or retirement—can remove essential support structures in the lives of high-functioning individuals with ADHD. As a result, such events surpass these individuals’ ability to cope, resulting in a late-life manifestation of ADHD.

The plausibility of late-onset ADHD

In recent years, many studies identifying ADHD in adults have been published,^2,10,12-15 including some that discuss adult ADHD that spontaneously appears without childhood symptoms (ie, late-onset ADHD).^2,4,12 Research of late-onset ADHD attracts attention because the data it presents challenge the current rationale that ADHD symptoms should be present before age 12, as defined by DSM-5 criteria. While most reports of late-onset ADHD pertain to younger adults, little evidence exists to reinforce the concept; to date just 1 study has reported cases of late-onset ADHD in older adults (n = 7, age 51 to 59).¹¹ In this study, Sasaki et al¹¹ acknowledged the strong possibility their cases may be late manifestations of long-standing ADHD. Late-onset ADHD is further challenged by findings that 95% of individuals initially diagnosed with late-onset ADHD can be excluded from the diagnosis with further detailed assessment that accounts for co-occurring mental disorders and substance use.¹⁶ This suggests false positive cases of late-onset ADHD may be a symptom of narrow clinical assessment that fails to encompass other aspects of a patient’s psychiatric profile, rather than an atypical ADHD presentation.

Comorbidity and psychosocial functioning

ADHD symptoms and diagnosis in older adults are associated with clinically relevant levels of depression and anxiety. The Dutch Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (LASA) examined 1,494 older adults (age 55 to 85) using the Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults version 2.0.¹⁰ The 231 individuals identified as having symptoms of ADHD reported clinically relevant levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms. ADHD was significantly associated with these comorbid symptoms.

Continue to: Little is known regarding...

Little is known regarding the manifestation of symptoms of ADHD in older age and the difficulties these older adults face. Older adults with ADHD are more often divorced and report more loneliness than older adults without this disorder, which suggests loneliness in older age may be more pressing for the older ADHD population.¹⁷ ADHD in older adults has also been associated with poor quality-of-life measures, including moderate to severe problems in mobility, self-care, usual activity, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression (Table 1^14,17).

Qualitative research has described a domino effect of a lifetime of living with ADHD. In one American study, older adults with ADHD (N = 24, age 60 to 74) reported experiencing a tangible, accumulated impact from ADHD on their finances and long-term relationships with family, friends, and coworkers.¹³ Another study utilizing the Dutch LASA data examined how ADHD may impact patient’s lives among participants who were unaware of their diagnosis.¹⁸ One-half of patients reported low self-esteem, overstepping boundaries, and feeling different from others. When compared to younger adults with ADHD, older adults report significantly greater impairments in productivity and a worse life outlook.¹⁹

Differential diagnosis

When assessing whether an older adult has ADHD, it is important to consider other potential causes of their symptoms (Table 2^11,15,20-23). The differential diagnosis includes impaired vision and hearing as well as medical illness (vitamin B12 deficiency, hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism, hyperparathyroidism, and infectious diseases such as herpes simplex virus or syphilis).^11,15,20-23 Neurological causes include brain tumors, traumatic brain injuries, postconcussive syndrome, stroke, and neurocognitive disorders.^11,15,20-23 Other potential causes include obstructive sleep apnea, mood disorders, substance use disorders, and medication adverse effects (especially with polypharmacy).^11,15,20-23 In this population, other causes are often responsible for “late-manifestation ADHD symptoms.”^1,15 Neurocognitive disorders and other psychiatric conditions are especially difficult to differentiate from ADHD.

In older adults, ADHD symptoms include frontal-executive impairments, inattentiveness, difficulty with organization or multitasking, forgetfulness, and challenges involving activities of daily living or socialization that can appear to be a mild or major neurocognitive disorder (Table 3^11,24,25). This includes major neuro­cognitive disorder due to Alzheimer’s disease, Lewy body disease, and vascular disease.^2,26 However, frontotemporal lobar degeneration is reported to have more symptom overlap with ADHD.^21,22,26,27 A way to differentiate between neurocognitive disorders and ADHD in older adults is to consider that patients with neurocognitive disorders often progress to visual hallucinations and more extreme personality changes than would be expected in ADHD.¹¹ Each disease also has its own identifiable characteristics. Extreme changes in memory are often Alzheimer’s disease, personality changes suggest fronto­temporal lobar degeneration, stepwise decline is classic for vascular disease, and parkinsonian features may indicate dementia with Lewy bodies.²¹ In addition, the onset of ADHD usually occurs in childhood and can be traced throughout the lifespan,² whereas neurocognitive diseases usually appear for the first time in later life.^2,28 There are nuances in the nature of forgetfulness that can distinguish ADHD from neurocognitive disorders. For instance, the forgetfulness in early-onset Alzheimer’s disease involves “the lack of episodic memories,” while in contrast ADHD is thought to be “forgetfulness due to inadvertence.”¹¹ Furthermore, patients with neurocognitive disorders are reported to have more severe symptoms and an inability to explain why, whereas those with ADHD have a steady level of symptoms and can provide a more comprehensive story.²⁴ Two recent studies have shown that weak performance on language tests is more indicative of a neuro­degenerative process than of ADHD.^29,30 Research has suggested that if an older adult shows a sudden, acute onset of ADHD-like symptoms, this is most likely reflective of cognitive decline or a mood disorder such as depression.^2,15,24

Several other psychiatric conditions share many symptoms with ADHD. Overlapping symptomology between ADHD and mood and anxiety disorders presents challenges.²⁷ Emotional dysregulation is a feature of adult ADHD, and this often causes a mood disorder to be diagnosed without considering other possible explanations.^{21,22,27,31-34} Features of mania can overlap with ADHD symptoms, including psychomotor agitation, talkativeness, and distractibility.²⁷ Several other disorders also include distractibility, such as depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders.³⁵ Depression and anxiety can be an outcome of untreated ADHD, or can co-occur with ADHD.^21-23,27 ADHD can also co-occur with bipolar disorder (BD), substance use disorders, and personality disorders (borderline and antisocial personality disorder) (Figure 1^21-23,27,35). One suggested method of establishing an appropriate diagnosis is to study the efficacy of the treatment retrospectively. For example, if a patient is presumed to have depression and they do not respond to several selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, this may be undetected ADHD.²⁷ In addition, the argument about the chronicity of the symptoms should also be considered. ADHD symptoms are pervasive whereas BD symptoms are episodic.³⁵ Depression can be chronic; however, there are often discrete major depressive episodes. It is important to have a clear timeline of the patient’s symptoms. Ask about age of onset, because in theory, ADHD is supposed to start in childhood.²² It is sometimes difficult to ascertain this information because many older adults grew up during a time where ADHD was not a recognized diagnosis.²¹

Continue to: Diagnosis and workup

Diagnosis and workup

The key aspects of diagnosing ADHD are the interview based on DSM-5 criteria, exclusion of other diagnoses, and collateral information. Research has shown that clinical interviews and longitudinal family histories provide critical information that can differentiate ADHD from other psychiatric conditions.³⁵ DSM-5 criteria are adjusted for adults: 5 out of 9 criteria for inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity must be fulfilled, as opposed to 6 out of 9 in children age <17.^21,31,36 However, no criteria are specific for older adults.³⁷ Since the differential diagnosis involves multiple entities, it is important to follow DSM-5 criteria for ADHD, which include eliminating other conditions that can explain these symptoms.¹⁵ Additionally, in DSM-5, the age-of-onset threshold for ADHD diagnosis was increased from 7 and younger to 12 and younger, addressing criticism that the previous cutoff was too restrictive.^24,31 The age of onset of childhood symptoms can be challenging to verify in older adults. Older patients can have unreliable memories and their childhood records are not always available.^2,20 In this population, childhood symptoms are mainly underreported but sometimes overreported.^10,38 However, to establish a diagnosis, the patient should have experienced some symptoms of the disorder within their first 50 years of life, including having impaired functionality in multiple settings.^15,26 The goal is to establish the chronicity of this condition to distinguish it from other psychiatric conditions.²² Overall, using DSM-5 criteria without any modifications may lead to underdiagnosis of ADHD in adults.²³ At this time, however, DSM-5 remains the main criteria used to make a diagnosis.

While tools to assist in screening and diagnosing ADHD have been validated in adults, none have been validated specifically for older adults.²² Structured diagnostic interviews to diagnose ADHD include³⁹:

• Adult ADHD Clinical Diagnostic Scale version 1.2
• ADHD Lifespan Functioning interview
• Conners’ Adult ADHD Diagnostic interview for DSM-IV
• Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults version 2.0
• Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5.

ADHD symptom measures that can be used for screening and to look at treatment response include³⁹:

• ADHD Rating Scale 5
• Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale Symptom Checklist
• Barkley Adult ADHD Rating Scale IV
• Barkley Quick-Check for Adult ADHD Diagnosis
• Young ADHD Questionnaire
• RATE Scales.

Adult ADHD inventories consider problems that adults with ADHD face. These include³⁹:

• Brown Attention Deficit Disorders Scales—Adult version
• Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scales
• Wender-Reimherr Adult Attention Deficit Disorder Scale.

Since these scales were not designed for older adults, they may miss nuances in this population.⁴⁰

Continue to: It can be particularly...

It can be particularly perplexing to diagnose ADHD in older adults because the other possible causes of the symptoms are vast. During the interview, it is important to ask questions that may rule out other psychiatric, neurologic, and medical conditions.²¹ Screen for other diagnoses, and include questions about a patient’s sleep history to rule out obstructive sleep apnea.²¹ To screen for other psychiatric conditions, the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview 5.0.0 may be used.²² Other tools include the Saint Louis University AMSAD screen for depression, the Geriatric Depression Scale, and the Beck Anxiety Inventory.^28,41 To screen for cognitive functioning, the Saint Louis University Mental Status Exam, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, or Mini-Mental State Examination can be used.^22,28,42,43 Once screening is performed, a physical and neurologic examination is the best next step.²⁶ Additionally, laboratory data and imaging can rule out other conditions; however, these are not routinely performed to diagnose ADHD.

Laboratory tests should include a comprehensive metabolic panel, complete blood count, thyroid-stimulating hormone level, B12/folate level, and possibly a vitamin D level.^11,36 These tests cover several conditions that may mimic ADHD. Brain MRI is not routinely recommended for diagnosing ADHD, though it may be useful because some research has found brain structural differences in individuals with ADHD.^28,44,45 Neurocognitive disorders have notable MRI findings that distinguish them from ADHD and each other.²⁴ If there is significant concern for neurocognitive disorders, more specific tests can be employed, such as CSF studies, to look for phosphorylated tau and beta amyloid markers.¹¹

Ask about family history (first-degree relative with ADHD) and obtain collateral information to make sure no other diagnoses are overlooked. Family history can help diagnose this disorder in older adults because there is evidence that ADHD runs in families.^2,25 This evidence would ideally come from someone who has known the patient their entire life, such as a sibling or parent.²⁴ The collateral information will be especially helpful to discern the chronicity of the patient’s symptoms, which would point toward a diagnosis of ADHD. To summarize (Figure 2):

• obtain a thorough interview that may be supported by a screening tool
• rule out other conditions
• conduct a physical examination
• obtain laboratory results
• collect collateral information
• obtain neuroimaging if necessary.

Treatment

ADHD symptoms can be treated with medications and psychotherapy. Research has shown the efficacy of ADHD medications in older adults, demonstrating that treatment leads to better functioning in multiple settings and decreases the risk for developing comorbid psychiatric conditions (mood disorder, substance use disorders).^25,27 Symptoms that improve with medication include attention, concentration, self-efficacy, functioning, self-esteem, psychomotor agitation, mood, energy, and procrastination.^21,31,46 If a patient with ADHD also has other psychiatric diagnoses, treat the most impairing disorder first.²² This often means mood disorders and substance use disorders must be remedied before ADHD is treated.²¹

Medication options include stimulants and nonstimulants. First-line treatments are stimulant medications, including methylphenidate, amphetamines, and mixed amphetamine salts.^{12,22,27,31,35} Stimulants have shown significant efficacy in older adults, although the American Geriatrics Society’s Beers Criteria list stimulants as potentially inappropriate for older adults.³³ Adults show significant improvement with methylphenidate.^21,23,47 In an observational study, Michielsen et al⁴⁶ found stimulants were safe and efficacious in older adults if patients are carefully monitored for adverse effects, especially cardiovascular changes. Second-line treatments include the nonstimulant atomoxetine.^12,22,27,31 Clonidine and guanfacine are FDA-approved for treating ADHD in children, but not approved for adults.²⁶ There is little evidence for other treatments, such as bupropion.^12,22,27 All of these medications have adverse effects, which are especially important to consider in older adults, who experience age-related physiological changes.

Continue to: Medications for ADHD symptoms...

Medications for ADHD symptoms are thought to act via catecholaminergic mechanisms.²¹ As a result, adverse effects of stimulants can include headache, appetite suppression, nausea, difficulty sleeping, tremor, blurred vision, agitation, psychosis, increased heart rate, arrhythmia, and hypertension.^22,27,32-34 Especially in older adults, adverse effects such as reduced appetite, disrupted sleep, or increased blood pressure or heart rate may be harmful.^21,23 Using caffeine or pseudoephedrine can exacerbate these adverse effects.²¹ Atomoxetine’s adverse effects include appetite suppression, insomnia, dizziness, anxiety, agitation, fatigue, dry mouth, constipation, nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia, and increased heart rate or blood pressure.^27,32,35 Genitourinary adverse effects have also been reported, including priapism (rare), decreased libido, and urinary hesitancy and retention.^26,32 Before any medication is initiated, it is important to conduct a physical and neurologic examination and a detailed clinical interview.

Before starting medication, as with any medical treatment, conduct a risk vs benefit analysis. Record baseline values for the patient’s heart rate, blood pressure, and weight.^23,26,27,31 During the interview, screen for family and personal cardiovascular conditions,^27,33 and obtain an electrocardiogram for any patient with cardiovascular risks.^23,26,27,31 Once the patient is deemed to be an appropriate candidate for pharmacologic treatment, begin with low doses and titrate the medication slowly until reaching a therapeutic level.^23,48

Medications should be combined with psychotherapy (eg, cognitive-behavioral therapy or dialectical behavioral therapy) and other lifestyle changes (exercise, mindfulness, support groups).^{18,22,23,27,31,49} Psychotherapy can help patients come to terms with receiving an ADHD diagnosis later in life and help with organization and socialization.^12,50 Pharmacologic treatments are thought to be helpful with attention challenges and emotional instability.⁵⁰ Taken together, medications and behavioral interventions can help individuals experience an improved quality of life.

Future directions

Given the relatively recent interest in ADHD in older adults, there are several areas that need further research. For future editions of DSM, it may be prudent to consider establishing ADHD criteria specific to older adults. Research has also shown the need for clear diagnostic and validated tools for older adults.⁸ Few analyses have been undertaken regarding pharmacotherapy for this population. Randomized controlled clinical trials are needed.^23,37,48 More research about the relative utility of psychotherapy and behavioral interventions would also be useful, given their potential to improve the quality of life for older adults with ADHD.

Bottom Line

Although generally thought of as a disorder of childhood, attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has substantial effects in older adults. When the condition is appropriately diagnosed, pharmacologic treatment and psychotherapy are associated with improved quality of life for older patients with ADHD.

Related Resources

• Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Living with ADHD: A lifespan disorder. https://chadd.org/for-adults/living-with-adhd-a-lifespan-disorder/
• Attention Deficit Disorder Association. Support groups for adults. https://add.org/adhd-support-groups/

Drug Brand Names

Amphetamine/dextroamphetamine • Adderall
Atomoxetine • Straterra
Bupropion • Wellbutrin
Clonidine • Catapres
Guanfacine • Intuniv
Methylphenidate • Ritalin

For many years, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was thought of as a disorder of childhood; however, it is now increasingly being recognized as a chronic, lifelong disorder that persists into adulthood in approximately two-thirds of patients.¹ While our knowledge about ADHD in adults has increased, most research in this population focused on young or middle-aged adults; less is known about ADHD in older adults. Older adults with ADHD may be newly diagnosed at any point in their lives, or not at all.² Because ADHD may present differently in older adults than in children or young adults, and because it may impair domains of life in different ways, a closer look at late-life ADHD is needed. This article summarizes the literature on the prevalence, impairment, diagnosis, and treatment of ADHD in adults age >60.

Challenges in determining the prevalence

Few studies have examined the age-specific prevalence of ADHD among older adults.³ Compared with childhood ADHD, adult ADHD is relatively neglected in epidemiological studies, largely due to the absence of well-established, validated diagnostic criteria.^1,4 Some experts have noted that DSM-5’s ADHD criteria were designed for diagnosing children, and the children-focused symptom threshold may not be useful for adults because ADHD symptoms decline substantially with age.² One study evaluating DSM-5 ADHD criteria in young adults (N = 4,000, age 18 to 19) found ADHD was better diagnosed when the required number of clinically relevant inattention and hyperactivity symptoms was reduced from 6 to 5 for each category.⁵ They also found the DSM-5 age-at-onset criterion of symptoms present before age 12 had a significant effect on ADHD prevalence, reducing the rate from 23.7% (95% CI, 22.38 to 25.02) to 5.4% (95% CI, 13.99 to 16.21).⁵ This suggests that strict usage of DSM-5 criteria may underestimate the prevalence of ADHD in adults, because ADHD symptoms may not be detected in childhood, or self-reporting of childhood ADHD symptoms in older adults may be unreliable due to aging processes that compromise memory and recall. These findings also indicate that fewer ADHD symptoms are needed to impair functioning in older age.

Determining the prevalence of ADHD among older adults is further complicated by individuals who report symptoms consistent with an ADHD diagnosis despite having never received this diagnosis during childhood.^6-8 This may be due to the considerable number of children who meet ADHD criteria but do not get a diagnosis due to limited access to health care.⁹ Thus, many studies separately analyze the syndromatic (with a childhood onset) and symptomatic (regardless of childhood onset) persistence of ADHD. One epidemiological meta-analysis found the 2020 prevalence of syndromatic ADHD in adults age >60 was 0.77% and the prevalence of symptomatic ADHD was 4.51%, which translates to 7.91 million and 46.36 million affected older adults, respectively.⁸ Other research has reported higher rates among older adults.^6,7,10 The variations among this research may be attributed to the use of different diagnostic tools/criteria, study populations, sampling methods, or DSM versions. Heterogeneity among this research also further supports the idea that the prevalence of ADHD is heavily dependent on how one defines and diagnoses the disorder.

Reasons for late-life ADHD diagnosis

There are many reasons a patient may not be diagnosed with ADHD until they are an older adult.¹¹ In addition to socioeconomic barriers to health care access, members of different ethnic groups exhibit differences in help-seeking behaviors; children may belong to a culture that does not traditionally seek health care even when symptoms are evident.^6,9 Therefore, individuals may not receive a diagnosis until adulthood. Some experts have discussed the similarity of ADHD to other neurodevelopmental disorders, such as autism spectrum disorder or social communication disorder, where ADHD symptoms may not manifest until stressors at critical points in life exceed an individual’s capacity to compensate.²

The life transition model contextualizes ADHD as being associated with demand/resource imbalances that come and go throughout life, resulting in variability in the degree of functional impairment ADHD symptoms cause in older adults.^2,12 Hypothetically, events in late life—such as the death of a spouse or retirement—can remove essential support structures in the lives of high-functioning individuals with ADHD. As a result, such events surpass these individuals’ ability to cope, resulting in a late-life manifestation of ADHD.

The plausibility of late-onset ADHD

In recent years, many studies identifying ADHD in adults have been published,^2,10,12-15 including some that discuss adult ADHD that spontaneously appears without childhood symptoms (ie, late-onset ADHD).^2,4,12 Research of late-onset ADHD attracts attention because the data it presents challenge the current rationale that ADHD symptoms should be present before age 12, as defined by DSM-5 criteria. While most reports of late-onset ADHD pertain to younger adults, little evidence exists to reinforce the concept; to date just 1 study has reported cases of late-onset ADHD in older adults (n = 7, age 51 to 59).¹¹ In this study, Sasaki et al¹¹ acknowledged the strong possibility their cases may be late manifestations of long-standing ADHD. Late-onset ADHD is further challenged by findings that 95% of individuals initially diagnosed with late-onset ADHD can be excluded from the diagnosis with further detailed assessment that accounts for co-occurring mental disorders and substance use.¹⁶ This suggests false positive cases of late-onset ADHD may be a symptom of narrow clinical assessment that fails to encompass other aspects of a patient’s psychiatric profile, rather than an atypical ADHD presentation.

Comorbidity and psychosocial functioning

ADHD symptoms and diagnosis in older adults are associated with clinically relevant levels of depression and anxiety. The Dutch Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (LASA) examined 1,494 older adults (age 55 to 85) using the Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults version 2.0.¹⁰ The 231 individuals identified as having symptoms of ADHD reported clinically relevant levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms. ADHD was significantly associated with these comorbid symptoms.

Continue to: Little is known regarding...

Little is known regarding the manifestation of symptoms of ADHD in older age and the difficulties these older adults face. Older adults with ADHD are more often divorced and report more loneliness than older adults without this disorder, which suggests loneliness in older age may be more pressing for the older ADHD population.¹⁷ ADHD in older adults has also been associated with poor quality-of-life measures, including moderate to severe problems in mobility, self-care, usual activity, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression (Table 1^14,17).

Qualitative research has described a domino effect of a lifetime of living with ADHD. In one American study, older adults with ADHD (N = 24, age 60 to 74) reported experiencing a tangible, accumulated impact from ADHD on their finances and long-term relationships with family, friends, and coworkers.¹³ Another study utilizing the Dutch LASA data examined how ADHD may impact patient’s lives among participants who were unaware of their diagnosis.¹⁸ One-half of patients reported low self-esteem, overstepping boundaries, and feeling different from others. When compared to younger adults with ADHD, older adults report significantly greater impairments in productivity and a worse life outlook.¹⁹

Differential diagnosis

When assessing whether an older adult has ADHD, it is important to consider other potential causes of their symptoms (Table 2^11,15,20-23). The differential diagnosis includes impaired vision and hearing as well as medical illness (vitamin B12 deficiency, hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism, hyperparathyroidism, and infectious diseases such as herpes simplex virus or syphilis).^11,15,20-23 Neurological causes include brain tumors, traumatic brain injuries, postconcussive syndrome, stroke, and neurocognitive disorders.^11,15,20-23 Other potential causes include obstructive sleep apnea, mood disorders, substance use disorders, and medication adverse effects (especially with polypharmacy).^11,15,20-23 In this population, other causes are often responsible for “late-manifestation ADHD symptoms.”^1,15 Neurocognitive disorders and other psychiatric conditions are especially difficult to differentiate from ADHD.

In older adults, ADHD symptoms include frontal-executive impairments, inattentiveness, difficulty with organization or multitasking, forgetfulness, and challenges involving activities of daily living or socialization that can appear to be a mild or major neurocognitive disorder (Table 3^11,24,25). This includes major neuro­cognitive disorder due to Alzheimer’s disease, Lewy body disease, and vascular disease.^2,26 However, frontotemporal lobar degeneration is reported to have more symptom overlap with ADHD.^21,22,26,27 A way to differentiate between neurocognitive disorders and ADHD in older adults is to consider that patients with neurocognitive disorders often progress to visual hallucinations and more extreme personality changes than would be expected in ADHD.¹¹ Each disease also has its own identifiable characteristics. Extreme changes in memory are often Alzheimer’s disease, personality changes suggest fronto­temporal lobar degeneration, stepwise decline is classic for vascular disease, and parkinsonian features may indicate dementia with Lewy bodies.²¹ In addition, the onset of ADHD usually occurs in childhood and can be traced throughout the lifespan,² whereas neurocognitive diseases usually appear for the first time in later life.^2,28 There are nuances in the nature of forgetfulness that can distinguish ADHD from neurocognitive disorders. For instance, the forgetfulness in early-onset Alzheimer’s disease involves “the lack of episodic memories,” while in contrast ADHD is thought to be “forgetfulness due to inadvertence.”¹¹ Furthermore, patients with neurocognitive disorders are reported to have more severe symptoms and an inability to explain why, whereas those with ADHD have a steady level of symptoms and can provide a more comprehensive story.²⁴ Two recent studies have shown that weak performance on language tests is more indicative of a neuro­degenerative process than of ADHD.^29,30 Research has suggested that if an older adult shows a sudden, acute onset of ADHD-like symptoms, this is most likely reflective of cognitive decline or a mood disorder such as depression.^2,15,24

Several other psychiatric conditions share many symptoms with ADHD. Overlapping symptomology between ADHD and mood and anxiety disorders presents challenges.²⁷ Emotional dysregulation is a feature of adult ADHD, and this often causes a mood disorder to be diagnosed without considering other possible explanations.^{21,22,27,31-34} Features of mania can overlap with ADHD symptoms, including psychomotor agitation, talkativeness, and distractibility.²⁷ Several other disorders also include distractibility, such as depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders.³⁵ Depression and anxiety can be an outcome of untreated ADHD, or can co-occur with ADHD.^21-23,27 ADHD can also co-occur with bipolar disorder (BD), substance use disorders, and personality disorders (borderline and antisocial personality disorder) (Figure 1^21-23,27,35). One suggested method of establishing an appropriate diagnosis is to study the efficacy of the treatment retrospectively. For example, if a patient is presumed to have depression and they do not respond to several selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, this may be undetected ADHD.²⁷ In addition, the argument about the chronicity of the symptoms should also be considered. ADHD symptoms are pervasive whereas BD symptoms are episodic.³⁵ Depression can be chronic; however, there are often discrete major depressive episodes. It is important to have a clear timeline of the patient’s symptoms. Ask about age of onset, because in theory, ADHD is supposed to start in childhood.²² It is sometimes difficult to ascertain this information because many older adults grew up during a time where ADHD was not a recognized diagnosis.²¹

Continue to: Diagnosis and workup

Diagnosis and workup

The key aspects of diagnosing ADHD are the interview based on DSM-5 criteria, exclusion of other diagnoses, and collateral information. Research has shown that clinical interviews and longitudinal family histories provide critical information that can differentiate ADHD from other psychiatric conditions.³⁵ DSM-5 criteria are adjusted for adults: 5 out of 9 criteria for inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity must be fulfilled, as opposed to 6 out of 9 in children age <17.^21,31,36 However, no criteria are specific for older adults.³⁷ Since the differential diagnosis involves multiple entities, it is important to follow DSM-5 criteria for ADHD, which include eliminating other conditions that can explain these symptoms.¹⁵ Additionally, in DSM-5, the age-of-onset threshold for ADHD diagnosis was increased from 7 and younger to 12 and younger, addressing criticism that the previous cutoff was too restrictive.^24,31 The age of onset of childhood symptoms can be challenging to verify in older adults. Older patients can have unreliable memories and their childhood records are not always available.^2,20 In this population, childhood symptoms are mainly underreported but sometimes overreported.^10,38 However, to establish a diagnosis, the patient should have experienced some symptoms of the disorder within their first 50 years of life, including having impaired functionality in multiple settings.^15,26 The goal is to establish the chronicity of this condition to distinguish it from other psychiatric conditions.²² Overall, using DSM-5 criteria without any modifications may lead to underdiagnosis of ADHD in adults.²³ At this time, however, DSM-5 remains the main criteria used to make a diagnosis.

While tools to assist in screening and diagnosing ADHD have been validated in adults, none have been validated specifically for older adults.²² Structured diagnostic interviews to diagnose ADHD include³⁹:

• Adult ADHD Clinical Diagnostic Scale version 1.2
• ADHD Lifespan Functioning interview
• Conners’ Adult ADHD Diagnostic interview for DSM-IV
• Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults version 2.0
• Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5.

ADHD symptom measures that can be used for screening and to look at treatment response include³⁹:

• ADHD Rating Scale 5
• Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale Symptom Checklist
• Barkley Adult ADHD Rating Scale IV
• Barkley Quick-Check for Adult ADHD Diagnosis
• Young ADHD Questionnaire
• RATE Scales.

Adult ADHD inventories consider problems that adults with ADHD face. These include³⁹:

• Brown Attention Deficit Disorders Scales—Adult version
• Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scales
• Wender-Reimherr Adult Attention Deficit Disorder Scale.

Since these scales were not designed for older adults, they may miss nuances in this population.⁴⁰

Continue to: It can be particularly...

It can be particularly perplexing to diagnose ADHD in older adults because the other possible causes of the symptoms are vast. During the interview, it is important to ask questions that may rule out other psychiatric, neurologic, and medical conditions.²¹ Screen for other diagnoses, and include questions about a patient’s sleep history to rule out obstructive sleep apnea.²¹ To screen for other psychiatric conditions, the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview 5.0.0 may be used.²² Other tools include the Saint Louis University AMSAD screen for depression, the Geriatric Depression Scale, and the Beck Anxiety Inventory.^28,41 To screen for cognitive functioning, the Saint Louis University Mental Status Exam, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, or Mini-Mental State Examination can be used.^22,28,42,43 Once screening is performed, a physical and neurologic examination is the best next step.²⁶ Additionally, laboratory data and imaging can rule out other conditions; however, these are not routinely performed to diagnose ADHD.

Laboratory tests should include a comprehensive metabolic panel, complete blood count, thyroid-stimulating hormone level, B12/folate level, and possibly a vitamin D level.^11,36 These tests cover several conditions that may mimic ADHD. Brain MRI is not routinely recommended for diagnosing ADHD, though it may be useful because some research has found brain structural differences in individuals with ADHD.^28,44,45 Neurocognitive disorders have notable MRI findings that distinguish them from ADHD and each other.²⁴ If there is significant concern for neurocognitive disorders, more specific tests can be employed, such as CSF studies, to look for phosphorylated tau and beta amyloid markers.¹¹

Ask about family history (first-degree relative with ADHD) and obtain collateral information to make sure no other diagnoses are overlooked. Family history can help diagnose this disorder in older adults because there is evidence that ADHD runs in families.^2,25 This evidence would ideally come from someone who has known the patient their entire life, such as a sibling or parent.²⁴ The collateral information will be especially helpful to discern the chronicity of the patient’s symptoms, which would point toward a diagnosis of ADHD. To summarize (Figure 2):

• obtain a thorough interview that may be supported by a screening tool
• rule out other conditions
• conduct a physical examination
• obtain laboratory results
• collect collateral information
• obtain neuroimaging if necessary.

Treatment

ADHD symptoms can be treated with medications and psychotherapy. Research has shown the efficacy of ADHD medications in older adults, demonstrating that treatment leads to better functioning in multiple settings and decreases the risk for developing comorbid psychiatric conditions (mood disorder, substance use disorders).^25,27 Symptoms that improve with medication include attention, concentration, self-efficacy, functioning, self-esteem, psychomotor agitation, mood, energy, and procrastination.^21,31,46 If a patient with ADHD also has other psychiatric diagnoses, treat the most impairing disorder first.²² This often means mood disorders and substance use disorders must be remedied before ADHD is treated.²¹

Medication options include stimulants and nonstimulants. First-line treatments are stimulant medications, including methylphenidate, amphetamines, and mixed amphetamine salts.^{12,22,27,31,35} Stimulants have shown significant efficacy in older adults, although the American Geriatrics Society’s Beers Criteria list stimulants as potentially inappropriate for older adults.³³ Adults show significant improvement with methylphenidate.^21,23,47 In an observational study, Michielsen et al⁴⁶ found stimulants were safe and efficacious in older adults if patients are carefully monitored for adverse effects, especially cardiovascular changes. Second-line treatments include the nonstimulant atomoxetine.^12,22,27,31 Clonidine and guanfacine are FDA-approved for treating ADHD in children, but not approved for adults.²⁶ There is little evidence for other treatments, such as bupropion.^12,22,27 All of these medications have adverse effects, which are especially important to consider in older adults, who experience age-related physiological changes.

Continue to: Medications for ADHD symptoms...

Medications for ADHD symptoms are thought to act via catecholaminergic mechanisms.²¹ As a result, adverse effects of stimulants can include headache, appetite suppression, nausea, difficulty sleeping, tremor, blurred vision, agitation, psychosis, increased heart rate, arrhythmia, and hypertension.^22,27,32-34 Especially in older adults, adverse effects such as reduced appetite, disrupted sleep, or increased blood pressure or heart rate may be harmful.^21,23 Using caffeine or pseudoephedrine can exacerbate these adverse effects.²¹ Atomoxetine’s adverse effects include appetite suppression, insomnia, dizziness, anxiety, agitation, fatigue, dry mouth, constipation, nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia, and increased heart rate or blood pressure.^27,32,35 Genitourinary adverse effects have also been reported, including priapism (rare), decreased libido, and urinary hesitancy and retention.^26,32 Before any medication is initiated, it is important to conduct a physical and neurologic examination and a detailed clinical interview.

Before starting medication, as with any medical treatment, conduct a risk vs benefit analysis. Record baseline values for the patient’s heart rate, blood pressure, and weight.^23,26,27,31 During the interview, screen for family and personal cardiovascular conditions,^27,33 and obtain an electrocardiogram for any patient with cardiovascular risks.^23,26,27,31 Once the patient is deemed to be an appropriate candidate for pharmacologic treatment, begin with low doses and titrate the medication slowly until reaching a therapeutic level.^23,48

Medications should be combined with psychotherapy (eg, cognitive-behavioral therapy or dialectical behavioral therapy) and other lifestyle changes (exercise, mindfulness, support groups).^{18,22,23,27,31,49} Psychotherapy can help patients come to terms with receiving an ADHD diagnosis later in life and help with organization and socialization.^12,50 Pharmacologic treatments are thought to be helpful with attention challenges and emotional instability.⁵⁰ Taken together, medications and behavioral interventions can help individuals experience an improved quality of life.

Future directions

Given the relatively recent interest in ADHD in older adults, there are several areas that need further research. For future editions of DSM, it may be prudent to consider establishing ADHD criteria specific to older adults. Research has also shown the need for clear diagnostic and validated tools for older adults.⁸ Few analyses have been undertaken regarding pharmacotherapy for this population. Randomized controlled clinical trials are needed.^23,37,48 More research about the relative utility of psychotherapy and behavioral interventions would also be useful, given their potential to improve the quality of life for older adults with ADHD.

Bottom Line

Although generally thought of as a disorder of childhood, attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has substantial effects in older adults. When the condition is appropriately diagnosed, pharmacologic treatment and psychotherapy are associated with improved quality of life for older patients with ADHD.

Related Resources

• Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Living with ADHD: A lifespan disorder. https://chadd.org/for-adults/living-with-adhd-a-lifespan-disorder/
• Attention Deficit Disorder Association. Support groups for adults. https://add.org/adhd-support-groups/

Drug Brand Names

Amphetamine/dextroamphetamine • Adderall
Atomoxetine • Straterra
Bupropion • Wellbutrin
Clonidine • Catapres
Guanfacine • Intuniv
Methylphenidate • Ritalin

For many years, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was thought of as a disorder of childhood; however, it is now increasingly being recognized as a chronic, lifelong disorder that persists into adulthood in approximately two-thirds of patients.¹ While our knowledge about ADHD in adults has increased, most research in this population focused on young or middle-aged adults; less is known about ADHD in older adults. Older adults with ADHD may be newly diagnosed at any point in their lives, or not at all.² Because ADHD may present differently in older adults than in children or young adults, and because it may impair domains of life in different ways, a closer look at late-life ADHD is needed. This article summarizes the literature on the prevalence, impairment, diagnosis, and treatment of ADHD in adults age >60.

Challenges in determining the prevalence

Few studies have examined the age-specific prevalence of ADHD among older adults.³ Compared with childhood ADHD, adult ADHD is relatively neglected in epidemiological studies, largely due to the absence of well-established, validated diagnostic criteria.^1,4 Some experts have noted that DSM-5’s ADHD criteria were designed for diagnosing children, and the children-focused symptom threshold may not be useful for adults because ADHD symptoms decline substantially with age.² One study evaluating DSM-5 ADHD criteria in young adults (N = 4,000, age 18 to 19) found ADHD was better diagnosed when the required number of clinically relevant inattention and hyperactivity symptoms was reduced from 6 to 5 for each category.⁵ They also found the DSM-5 age-at-onset criterion of symptoms present before age 12 had a significant effect on ADHD prevalence, reducing the rate from 23.7% (95% CI, 22.38 to 25.02) to 5.4% (95% CI, 13.99 to 16.21).⁵ This suggests that strict usage of DSM-5 criteria may underestimate the prevalence of ADHD in adults, because ADHD symptoms may not be detected in childhood, or self-reporting of childhood ADHD symptoms in older adults may be unreliable due to aging processes that compromise memory and recall. These findings also indicate that fewer ADHD symptoms are needed to impair functioning in older age.

Determining the prevalence of ADHD among older adults is further complicated by individuals who report symptoms consistent with an ADHD diagnosis despite having never received this diagnosis during childhood.^6-8 This may be due to the considerable number of children who meet ADHD criteria but do not get a diagnosis due to limited access to health care.⁹ Thus, many studies separately analyze the syndromatic (with a childhood onset) and symptomatic (regardless of childhood onset) persistence of ADHD. One epidemiological meta-analysis found the 2020 prevalence of syndromatic ADHD in adults age >60 was 0.77% and the prevalence of symptomatic ADHD was 4.51%, which translates to 7.91 million and 46.36 million affected older adults, respectively.⁸ Other research has reported higher rates among older adults.^6,7,10 The variations among this research may be attributed to the use of different diagnostic tools/criteria, study populations, sampling methods, or DSM versions. Heterogeneity among this research also further supports the idea that the prevalence of ADHD is heavily dependent on how one defines and diagnoses the disorder.

Reasons for late-life ADHD diagnosis

There are many reasons a patient may not be diagnosed with ADHD until they are an older adult.¹¹ In addition to socioeconomic barriers to health care access, members of different ethnic groups exhibit differences in help-seeking behaviors; children may belong to a culture that does not traditionally seek health care even when symptoms are evident.^6,9 Therefore, individuals may not receive a diagnosis until adulthood. Some experts have discussed the similarity of ADHD to other neurodevelopmental disorders, such as autism spectrum disorder or social communication disorder, where ADHD symptoms may not manifest until stressors at critical points in life exceed an individual’s capacity to compensate.²

The life transition model contextualizes ADHD as being associated with demand/resource imbalances that come and go throughout life, resulting in variability in the degree of functional impairment ADHD symptoms cause in older adults.^2,12 Hypothetically, events in late life—such as the death of a spouse or retirement—can remove essential support structures in the lives of high-functioning individuals with ADHD. As a result, such events surpass these individuals’ ability to cope, resulting in a late-life manifestation of ADHD.

The plausibility of late-onset ADHD

In recent years, many studies identifying ADHD in adults have been published,^2,10,12-15 including some that discuss adult ADHD that spontaneously appears without childhood symptoms (ie, late-onset ADHD).^2,4,12 Research of late-onset ADHD attracts attention because the data it presents challenge the current rationale that ADHD symptoms should be present before age 12, as defined by DSM-5 criteria. While most reports of late-onset ADHD pertain to younger adults, little evidence exists to reinforce the concept; to date just 1 study has reported cases of late-onset ADHD in older adults (n = 7, age 51 to 59).¹¹ In this study, Sasaki et al¹¹ acknowledged the strong possibility their cases may be late manifestations of long-standing ADHD. Late-onset ADHD is further challenged by findings that 95% of individuals initially diagnosed with late-onset ADHD can be excluded from the diagnosis with further detailed assessment that accounts for co-occurring mental disorders and substance use.¹⁶ This suggests false positive cases of late-onset ADHD may be a symptom of narrow clinical assessment that fails to encompass other aspects of a patient’s psychiatric profile, rather than an atypical ADHD presentation.

Comorbidity and psychosocial functioning

ADHD symptoms and diagnosis in older adults are associated with clinically relevant levels of depression and anxiety. The Dutch Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (LASA) examined 1,494 older adults (age 55 to 85) using the Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults version 2.0.¹⁰ The 231 individuals identified as having symptoms of ADHD reported clinically relevant levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms. ADHD was significantly associated with these comorbid symptoms.

Continue to: Little is known regarding...

Little is known regarding the manifestation of symptoms of ADHD in older age and the difficulties these older adults face. Older adults with ADHD are more often divorced and report more loneliness than older adults without this disorder, which suggests loneliness in older age may be more pressing for the older ADHD population.¹⁷ ADHD in older adults has also been associated with poor quality-of-life measures, including moderate to severe problems in mobility, self-care, usual activity, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression (Table 1^14,17).

Qualitative research has described a domino effect of a lifetime of living with ADHD. In one American study, older adults with ADHD (N = 24, age 60 to 74) reported experiencing a tangible, accumulated impact from ADHD on their finances and long-term relationships with family, friends, and coworkers.¹³ Another study utilizing the Dutch LASA data examined how ADHD may impact patient’s lives among participants who were unaware of their diagnosis.¹⁸ One-half of patients reported low self-esteem, overstepping boundaries, and feeling different from others. When compared to younger adults with ADHD, older adults report significantly greater impairments in productivity and a worse life outlook.¹⁹

Differential diagnosis

When assessing whether an older adult has ADHD, it is important to consider other potential causes of their symptoms (Table 2^11,15,20-23). The differential diagnosis includes impaired vision and hearing as well as medical illness (vitamin B12 deficiency, hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism, hyperparathyroidism, and infectious diseases such as herpes simplex virus or syphilis).^11,15,20-23 Neurological causes include brain tumors, traumatic brain injuries, postconcussive syndrome, stroke, and neurocognitive disorders.^11,15,20-23 Other potential causes include obstructive sleep apnea, mood disorders, substance use disorders, and medication adverse effects (especially with polypharmacy).^11,15,20-23 In this population, other causes are often responsible for “late-manifestation ADHD symptoms.”^1,15 Neurocognitive disorders and other psychiatric conditions are especially difficult to differentiate from ADHD.

In older adults, ADHD symptoms include frontal-executive impairments, inattentiveness, difficulty with organization or multitasking, forgetfulness, and challenges involving activities of daily living or socialization that can appear to be a mild or major neurocognitive disorder (Table 3^11,24,25). This includes major neuro­cognitive disorder due to Alzheimer’s disease, Lewy body disease, and vascular disease.^2,26 However, frontotemporal lobar degeneration is reported to have more symptom overlap with ADHD.^21,22,26,27 A way to differentiate between neurocognitive disorders and ADHD in older adults is to consider that patients with neurocognitive disorders often progress to visual hallucinations and more extreme personality changes than would be expected in ADHD.¹¹ Each disease also has its own identifiable characteristics. Extreme changes in memory are often Alzheimer’s disease, personality changes suggest fronto­temporal lobar degeneration, stepwise decline is classic for vascular disease, and parkinsonian features may indicate dementia with Lewy bodies.²¹ In addition, the onset of ADHD usually occurs in childhood and can be traced throughout the lifespan,² whereas neurocognitive diseases usually appear for the first time in later life.^2,28 There are nuances in the nature of forgetfulness that can distinguish ADHD from neurocognitive disorders. For instance, the forgetfulness in early-onset Alzheimer’s disease involves “the lack of episodic memories,” while in contrast ADHD is thought to be “forgetfulness due to inadvertence.”¹¹ Furthermore, patients with neurocognitive disorders are reported to have more severe symptoms and an inability to explain why, whereas those with ADHD have a steady level of symptoms and can provide a more comprehensive story.²⁴ Two recent studies have shown that weak performance on language tests is more indicative of a neuro­degenerative process than of ADHD.^29,30 Research has suggested that if an older adult shows a sudden, acute onset of ADHD-like symptoms, this is most likely reflective of cognitive decline or a mood disorder such as depression.^2,15,24

Several other psychiatric conditions share many symptoms with ADHD. Overlapping symptomology between ADHD and mood and anxiety disorders presents challenges.²⁷ Emotional dysregulation is a feature of adult ADHD, and this often causes a mood disorder to be diagnosed without considering other possible explanations.^{21,22,27,31-34} Features of mania can overlap with ADHD symptoms, including psychomotor agitation, talkativeness, and distractibility.²⁷ Several other disorders also include distractibility, such as depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders.³⁵ Depression and anxiety can be an outcome of untreated ADHD, or can co-occur with ADHD.^21-23,27 ADHD can also co-occur with bipolar disorder (BD), substance use disorders, and personality disorders (borderline and antisocial personality disorder) (Figure 1^21-23,27,35). One suggested method of establishing an appropriate diagnosis is to study the efficacy of the treatment retrospectively. For example, if a patient is presumed to have depression and they do not respond to several selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, this may be undetected ADHD.²⁷ In addition, the argument about the chronicity of the symptoms should also be considered. ADHD symptoms are pervasive whereas BD symptoms are episodic.³⁵ Depression can be chronic; however, there are often discrete major depressive episodes. It is important to have a clear timeline of the patient’s symptoms. Ask about age of onset, because in theory, ADHD is supposed to start in childhood.²² It is sometimes difficult to ascertain this information because many older adults grew up during a time where ADHD was not a recognized diagnosis.²¹

Continue to: Diagnosis and workup

Diagnosis and workup

The key aspects of diagnosing ADHD are the interview based on DSM-5 criteria, exclusion of other diagnoses, and collateral information. Research has shown that clinical interviews and longitudinal family histories provide critical information that can differentiate ADHD from other psychiatric conditions.³⁵ DSM-5 criteria are adjusted for adults: 5 out of 9 criteria for inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity must be fulfilled, as opposed to 6 out of 9 in children age <17.^21,31,36 However, no criteria are specific for older adults.³⁷ Since the differential diagnosis involves multiple entities, it is important to follow DSM-5 criteria for ADHD, which include eliminating other conditions that can explain these symptoms.¹⁵ Additionally, in DSM-5, the age-of-onset threshold for ADHD diagnosis was increased from 7 and younger to 12 and younger, addressing criticism that the previous cutoff was too restrictive.^24,31 The age of onset of childhood symptoms can be challenging to verify in older adults. Older patients can have unreliable memories and their childhood records are not always available.^2,20 In this population, childhood symptoms are mainly underreported but sometimes overreported.^10,38 However, to establish a diagnosis, the patient should have experienced some symptoms of the disorder within their first 50 years of life, including having impaired functionality in multiple settings.^15,26 The goal is to establish the chronicity of this condition to distinguish it from other psychiatric conditions.²² Overall, using DSM-5 criteria without any modifications may lead to underdiagnosis of ADHD in adults.²³ At this time, however, DSM-5 remains the main criteria used to make a diagnosis.

While tools to assist in screening and diagnosing ADHD have been validated in adults, none have been validated specifically for older adults.²² Structured diagnostic interviews to diagnose ADHD include³⁹:

• Adult ADHD Clinical Diagnostic Scale version 1.2
• ADHD Lifespan Functioning interview
• Conners’ Adult ADHD Diagnostic interview for DSM-IV
• Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults version 2.0
• Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5.

ADHD symptom measures that can be used for screening and to look at treatment response include³⁹:

• ADHD Rating Scale 5
• Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale Symptom Checklist
• Barkley Adult ADHD Rating Scale IV
• Barkley Quick-Check for Adult ADHD Diagnosis
• Young ADHD Questionnaire
• RATE Scales.

Adult ADHD inventories consider problems that adults with ADHD face. These include³⁹:

• Brown Attention Deficit Disorders Scales—Adult version
• Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scales
• Wender-Reimherr Adult Attention Deficit Disorder Scale.

Since these scales were not designed for older adults, they may miss nuances in this population.⁴⁰

Continue to: It can be particularly...

It can be particularly perplexing to diagnose ADHD in older adults because the other possible causes of the symptoms are vast. During the interview, it is important to ask questions that may rule out other psychiatric, neurologic, and medical conditions.²¹ Screen for other diagnoses, and include questions about a patient’s sleep history to rule out obstructive sleep apnea.²¹ To screen for other psychiatric conditions, the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview 5.0.0 may be used.²² Other tools include the Saint Louis University AMSAD screen for depression, the Geriatric Depression Scale, and the Beck Anxiety Inventory.^28,41 To screen for cognitive functioning, the Saint Louis University Mental Status Exam, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, or Mini-Mental State Examination can be used.^22,28,42,43 Once screening is performed, a physical and neurologic examination is the best next step.²⁶ Additionally, laboratory data and imaging can rule out other conditions; however, these are not routinely performed to diagnose ADHD.

Laboratory tests should include a comprehensive metabolic panel, complete blood count, thyroid-stimulating hormone level, B12/folate level, and possibly a vitamin D level.^11,36 These tests cover several conditions that may mimic ADHD. Brain MRI is not routinely recommended for diagnosing ADHD, though it may be useful because some research has found brain structural differences in individuals with ADHD.^28,44,45 Neurocognitive disorders have notable MRI findings that distinguish them from ADHD and each other.²⁴ If there is significant concern for neurocognitive disorders, more specific tests can be employed, such as CSF studies, to look for phosphorylated tau and beta amyloid markers.¹¹

Ask about family history (first-degree relative with ADHD) and obtain collateral information to make sure no other diagnoses are overlooked. Family history can help diagnose this disorder in older adults because there is evidence that ADHD runs in families.^2,25 This evidence would ideally come from someone who has known the patient their entire life, such as a sibling or parent.²⁴ The collateral information will be especially helpful to discern the chronicity of the patient’s symptoms, which would point toward a diagnosis of ADHD. To summarize (Figure 2):

• obtain a thorough interview that may be supported by a screening tool
• rule out other conditions
• conduct a physical examination
• obtain laboratory results
• collect collateral information
• obtain neuroimaging if necessary.

Treatment

ADHD symptoms can be treated with medications and psychotherapy. Research has shown the efficacy of ADHD medications in older adults, demonstrating that treatment leads to better functioning in multiple settings and decreases the risk for developing comorbid psychiatric conditions (mood disorder, substance use disorders).^25,27 Symptoms that improve with medication include attention, concentration, self-efficacy, functioning, self-esteem, psychomotor agitation, mood, energy, and procrastination.^21,31,46 If a patient with ADHD also has other psychiatric diagnoses, treat the most impairing disorder first.²² This often means mood disorders and substance use disorders must be remedied before ADHD is treated.²¹

Medication options include stimulants and nonstimulants. First-line treatments are stimulant medications, including methylphenidate, amphetamines, and mixed amphetamine salts.^{12,22,27,31,35} Stimulants have shown significant efficacy in older adults, although the American Geriatrics Society’s Beers Criteria list stimulants as potentially inappropriate for older adults.³³ Adults show significant improvement with methylphenidate.^21,23,47 In an observational study, Michielsen et al⁴⁶ found stimulants were safe and efficacious in older adults if patients are carefully monitored for adverse effects, especially cardiovascular changes. Second-line treatments include the nonstimulant atomoxetine.^12,22,27,31 Clonidine and guanfacine are FDA-approved for treating ADHD in children, but not approved for adults.²⁶ There is little evidence for other treatments, such as bupropion.^12,22,27 All of these medications have adverse effects, which are especially important to consider in older adults, who experience age-related physiological changes.

Continue to: Medications for ADHD symptoms...

Medications for ADHD symptoms are thought to act via catecholaminergic mechanisms.²¹ As a result, adverse effects of stimulants can include headache, appetite suppression, nausea, difficulty sleeping, tremor, blurred vision, agitation, psychosis, increased heart rate, arrhythmia, and hypertension.^22,27,32-34 Especially in older adults, adverse effects such as reduced appetite, disrupted sleep, or increased blood pressure or heart rate may be harmful.^21,23 Using caffeine or pseudoephedrine can exacerbate these adverse effects.²¹ Atomoxetine’s adverse effects include appetite suppression, insomnia, dizziness, anxiety, agitation, fatigue, dry mouth, constipation, nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia, and increased heart rate or blood pressure.^27,32,35 Genitourinary adverse effects have also been reported, including priapism (rare), decreased libido, and urinary hesitancy and retention.^26,32 Before any medication is initiated, it is important to conduct a physical and neurologic examination and a detailed clinical interview.

Before starting medication, as with any medical treatment, conduct a risk vs benefit analysis. Record baseline values for the patient’s heart rate, blood pressure, and weight.^23,26,27,31 During the interview, screen for family and personal cardiovascular conditions,^27,33 and obtain an electrocardiogram for any patient with cardiovascular risks.^23,26,27,31 Once the patient is deemed to be an appropriate candidate for pharmacologic treatment, begin with low doses and titrate the medication slowly until reaching a therapeutic level.^23,48

Medications should be combined with psychotherapy (eg, cognitive-behavioral therapy or dialectical behavioral therapy) and other lifestyle changes (exercise, mindfulness, support groups).^{18,22,23,27,31,49} Psychotherapy can help patients come to terms with receiving an ADHD diagnosis later in life and help with organization and socialization.^12,50 Pharmacologic treatments are thought to be helpful with attention challenges and emotional instability.⁵⁰ Taken together, medications and behavioral interventions can help individuals experience an improved quality of life.

Future directions

Given the relatively recent interest in ADHD in older adults, there are several areas that need further research. For future editions of DSM, it may be prudent to consider establishing ADHD criteria specific to older adults. Research has also shown the need for clear diagnostic and validated tools for older adults.⁸ Few analyses have been undertaken regarding pharmacotherapy for this population. Randomized controlled clinical trials are needed.^23,37,48 More research about the relative utility of psychotherapy and behavioral interventions would also be useful, given their potential to improve the quality of life for older adults with ADHD.

Bottom Line

Although generally thought of as a disorder of childhood, attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has substantial effects in older adults. When the condition is appropriately diagnosed, pharmacologic treatment and psychotherapy are associated with improved quality of life for older patients with ADHD.

Related Resources

• Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Living with ADHD: A lifespan disorder. https://chadd.org/for-adults/living-with-adhd-a-lifespan-disorder/
• Attention Deficit Disorder Association. Support groups for adults. https://add.org/adhd-support-groups/

Drug Brand Names

Amphetamine/dextroamphetamine • Adderall
Atomoxetine • Straterra
Bupropion • Wellbutrin
Clonidine • Catapres
Guanfacine • Intuniv
Methylphenidate • Ritalin