Geriatrics

Many countries around the globe are starting to roll out another booster of the COVID-19 vaccine but, with public interest waning and a sense of normalcy firmly installed in our minds, this may prove an ill-fated effort, unless authorities can provide a coherent answer to the question “Is another jab really needed?” (The short answer is a firm “yes,” of course.)

In what we could call the “chronic” phase of the pandemic, most countries have now settled for a certain number of daily cases and a (relatively low) number of complications and deaths. It’s the vaccines that have afforded us this peace of mind, lest we forget. But they are different to other vaccines that we are more familiar with, such as the MMR that we get as kids and then forget about for the rest of our lives. As good as the different COVID-19 vaccines are, they never came with the promise of generating lifelong antibodies. We knew early on that the immunity they provide slowly wanes with time. That doesn’t mean that those who have their vaccination records up to date (which included a booster probably earlier in 2022) are suddenly exposed. Data suggest that although people several months past their last booster would now be more prone to getting reinfected, the protection against severe disease still hangs around 85%. In other words, their chances of ending up in the hospital are low.

Why worry, then, about further boosting the immune system? The same studies show that an additional jab would increase this percentage up to 99%. Is this roughly 10% improvement really worth another worldwide vaccination campaign? Well, this is a numbers game, after all. The current form of the virus is extremely infectious, and the Northern Hemisphere is heading toward the cold months of the year, which we have seen in past years increases COVID-19 contagions, as you would expect from any airborne virus. Thus, it’s easy to expect a new peak in the number of cases, especially considering that we are not going to apply any of the usual restrictions to prevent this. In these conditions, extending the safety net to a further 10% of the population would substantially reduce the total number of victims. It seems like a good investment of resources.

We can be more surgical about it and direct this new vaccination campaign to the population most likely to end up in the hospital. People with concomitant pathologies are at the top of the list, but it’s also an age issue. On the basis of different studies of the most common ages of admission, the cutoff point for the booster varies from country to country, with the lowest being 50 and in other cases hovering around 65 years of age. Given the safety of these vaccines, if we can afford it, the wider we cast the net, the better, but at least we should make every effort to fully vaccinate the higher age brackets.

The final question is which vaccine to give. There are confounding studies about the importance of switching to Omicron-specific jabs, which are finally available. Although this seems like a good idea, since Omicron infections elicit a more effective range of antibodies and new variants seem to better escape our defenses, recent studies suggest that there actually may not be so much difference with the old formula.

The conclusion? Vaccinate the elderly (and some middle-aged too, if possible) and the frail as soon as possible with any version of the booster you have available, if you want to keep hospital pressure to the minimum and save a fair number of complications and deaths over the next months. This regimen of yearly boosters for some may be the scenario for the upcoming years, similar to what we already do for the flu, so we should get used to it.

Dr. Macip is associate professor, department of molecular and cellular biology, University of Leicester (England). He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Many countries around the globe are starting to roll out another booster of the COVID-19 vaccine but, with public interest waning and a sense of normalcy firmly installed in our minds, this may prove an ill-fated effort, unless authorities can provide a coherent answer to the question “Is another jab really needed?” (The short answer is a firm “yes,” of course.)

In what we could call the “chronic” phase of the pandemic, most countries have now settled for a certain number of daily cases and a (relatively low) number of complications and deaths. It’s the vaccines that have afforded us this peace of mind, lest we forget. But they are different to other vaccines that we are more familiar with, such as the MMR that we get as kids and then forget about for the rest of our lives. As good as the different COVID-19 vaccines are, they never came with the promise of generating lifelong antibodies. We knew early on that the immunity they provide slowly wanes with time. That doesn’t mean that those who have their vaccination records up to date (which included a booster probably earlier in 2022) are suddenly exposed. Data suggest that although people several months past their last booster would now be more prone to getting reinfected, the protection against severe disease still hangs around 85%. In other words, their chances of ending up in the hospital are low.

Why worry, then, about further boosting the immune system? The same studies show that an additional jab would increase this percentage up to 99%. Is this roughly 10% improvement really worth another worldwide vaccination campaign? Well, this is a numbers game, after all. The current form of the virus is extremely infectious, and the Northern Hemisphere is heading toward the cold months of the year, which we have seen in past years increases COVID-19 contagions, as you would expect from any airborne virus. Thus, it’s easy to expect a new peak in the number of cases, especially considering that we are not going to apply any of the usual restrictions to prevent this. In these conditions, extending the safety net to a further 10% of the population would substantially reduce the total number of victims. It seems like a good investment of resources.

We can be more surgical about it and direct this new vaccination campaign to the population most likely to end up in the hospital. People with concomitant pathologies are at the top of the list, but it’s also an age issue. On the basis of different studies of the most common ages of admission, the cutoff point for the booster varies from country to country, with the lowest being 50 and in other cases hovering around 65 years of age. Given the safety of these vaccines, if we can afford it, the wider we cast the net, the better, but at least we should make every effort to fully vaccinate the higher age brackets.

The final question is which vaccine to give. There are confounding studies about the importance of switching to Omicron-specific jabs, which are finally available. Although this seems like a good idea, since Omicron infections elicit a more effective range of antibodies and new variants seem to better escape our defenses, recent studies suggest that there actually may not be so much difference with the old formula.

The conclusion? Vaccinate the elderly (and some middle-aged too, if possible) and the frail as soon as possible with any version of the booster you have available, if you want to keep hospital pressure to the minimum and save a fair number of complications and deaths over the next months. This regimen of yearly boosters for some may be the scenario for the upcoming years, similar to what we already do for the flu, so we should get used to it.

Dr. Macip is associate professor, department of molecular and cellular biology, University of Leicester (England). He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Many countries around the globe are starting to roll out another booster of the COVID-19 vaccine but, with public interest waning and a sense of normalcy firmly installed in our minds, this may prove an ill-fated effort, unless authorities can provide a coherent answer to the question “Is another jab really needed?” (The short answer is a firm “yes,” of course.)

In what we could call the “chronic” phase of the pandemic, most countries have now settled for a certain number of daily cases and a (relatively low) number of complications and deaths. It’s the vaccines that have afforded us this peace of mind, lest we forget. But they are different to other vaccines that we are more familiar with, such as the MMR that we get as kids and then forget about for the rest of our lives. As good as the different COVID-19 vaccines are, they never came with the promise of generating lifelong antibodies. We knew early on that the immunity they provide slowly wanes with time. That doesn’t mean that those who have their vaccination records up to date (which included a booster probably earlier in 2022) are suddenly exposed. Data suggest that although people several months past their last booster would now be more prone to getting reinfected, the protection against severe disease still hangs around 85%. In other words, their chances of ending up in the hospital are low.

Why worry, then, about further boosting the immune system? The same studies show that an additional jab would increase this percentage up to 99%. Is this roughly 10% improvement really worth another worldwide vaccination campaign? Well, this is a numbers game, after all. The current form of the virus is extremely infectious, and the Northern Hemisphere is heading toward the cold months of the year, which we have seen in past years increases COVID-19 contagions, as you would expect from any airborne virus. Thus, it’s easy to expect a new peak in the number of cases, especially considering that we are not going to apply any of the usual restrictions to prevent this. In these conditions, extending the safety net to a further 10% of the population would substantially reduce the total number of victims. It seems like a good investment of resources.

We can be more surgical about it and direct this new vaccination campaign to the population most likely to end up in the hospital. People with concomitant pathologies are at the top of the list, but it’s also an age issue. On the basis of different studies of the most common ages of admission, the cutoff point for the booster varies from country to country, with the lowest being 50 and in other cases hovering around 65 years of age. Given the safety of these vaccines, if we can afford it, the wider we cast the net, the better, but at least we should make every effort to fully vaccinate the higher age brackets.

The final question is which vaccine to give. There are confounding studies about the importance of switching to Omicron-specific jabs, which are finally available. Although this seems like a good idea, since Omicron infections elicit a more effective range of antibodies and new variants seem to better escape our defenses, recent studies suggest that there actually may not be so much difference with the old formula.

The conclusion? Vaccinate the elderly (and some middle-aged too, if possible) and the frail as soon as possible with any version of the booster you have available, if you want to keep hospital pressure to the minimum and save a fair number of complications and deaths over the next months. This regimen of yearly boosters for some may be the scenario for the upcoming years, similar to what we already do for the flu, so we should get used to it.

Dr. Macip is associate professor, department of molecular and cellular biology, University of Leicester (England). He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Lecanemab (Eisai/Biogen), an investigational amyloid-clearing monoclonal antibody, reduced cognitive decline by 27%, compared with placebo and decreased amyloid levels in the brain of adults enrolled in a phase 3 trial.

The Clarity AD trial included 1,795 adults with early AD and confirmed amyloid pathology in the brain. Treatment consisted of lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly or matching placebo.

Treatment with lecanemab met the primary endpoint, reducing clinical decline on the global cognitive and functional scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), at 18 months by 27%, compared with placebo, with a treatment difference in the score change of –0.45 (P = .00005), the companies reported.

Starting as early as 6 months, across all time points, treatment with lecanemab yielded highly statistically significant changes in CDR-SB from baseline, compared with placebo (all P < .01).

The study also met all key secondary endpoints with highly statistically significant results, compared with placebo (P < .01).

Key secondary endpoints, in comparison with placebo, were change from baseline at 18 months in amyloid levels in the brain measured by amyloid PET, the AD Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale14 (ADAS-cog14), the AD Composite Score (ADCOMS), and the AD Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment (ADCS MCI-ADL).
 

Imaging abnormalities within expectations

Overall, rates of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) related to lecanemab were “within expectations,” the companies said.

The incidence of ARIA related to edema (ARIA-E) was 12.5% in the lecanemab group and 1.7% in the placebo group.

The incidence of symptomatic ARIA-E was 2.8% and 0.0%, respectively, and the rate of cerebral hemorrhage (ARIA-H) was 17.0% and 8.7%. The total incidence of ARIA (ARIA-E and/or ARIA-H) was 21.3% in the lecanemab group and 9.3% in the placebo group.

Full results of the Clarity AD trial will be presented in November at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Congress.
 

Incremental benefit

Responding to the findings, the Alzheimer’s Association said in a statement that it “enthusiastically welcomes” the positive findings. It noted that these are “the most encouraging results in clinical trials treating the underlying causes of Alzheimer’s to date.

“For people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s, this treatment has the potential to change the course of the disease in a clinically meaningful way. These results indicate lecanemab may give people more time at or near their full abilities to participate in daily life, remain independent and make future health care decisions,” the Alzheimer’s Association added.

Also weighing in, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said in a release that “the combination of the biomarker change – reduced amyloid – plus slowing of cognitive decline in this study is encouraging news for the 57 million patients around the world living with Alzheimer’s.

“However, amyloid-clearing drugs will provide an incremental benefit at best, and there is still a pressing need for the next generation of drugs focused on other targets based on our knowledge of the biology of aging,” Dr. Fillit cautioned.

“We are optimistic about the future as many of these drugs are in development, with 75% of drugs in the pipeline now targeting nonamyloid pathways of neurodegeneration,” he added.

In July 2022, the Food and Drug Administration accepted Eisai’s biologics license application for lecanemab under the accelerated approval pathway and granted priority review. Lecanemab has a prescription Drugs User Fee Act action date of Jan. 6, 2023.

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

Lecanemab (Eisai/Biogen), an investigational amyloid-clearing monoclonal antibody, reduced cognitive decline by 27%, compared with placebo and decreased amyloid levels in the brain of adults enrolled in a phase 3 trial.

The Clarity AD trial included 1,795 adults with early AD and confirmed amyloid pathology in the brain. Treatment consisted of lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly or matching placebo.

Treatment with lecanemab met the primary endpoint, reducing clinical decline on the global cognitive and functional scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), at 18 months by 27%, compared with placebo, with a treatment difference in the score change of –0.45 (P = .00005), the companies reported.

Starting as early as 6 months, across all time points, treatment with lecanemab yielded highly statistically significant changes in CDR-SB from baseline, compared with placebo (all P < .01).

The study also met all key secondary endpoints with highly statistically significant results, compared with placebo (P < .01).

Key secondary endpoints, in comparison with placebo, were change from baseline at 18 months in amyloid levels in the brain measured by amyloid PET, the AD Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale14 (ADAS-cog14), the AD Composite Score (ADCOMS), and the AD Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment (ADCS MCI-ADL).
 

Imaging abnormalities within expectations

Overall, rates of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) related to lecanemab were “within expectations,” the companies said.

The incidence of ARIA related to edema (ARIA-E) was 12.5% in the lecanemab group and 1.7% in the placebo group.

The incidence of symptomatic ARIA-E was 2.8% and 0.0%, respectively, and the rate of cerebral hemorrhage (ARIA-H) was 17.0% and 8.7%. The total incidence of ARIA (ARIA-E and/or ARIA-H) was 21.3% in the lecanemab group and 9.3% in the placebo group.

Full results of the Clarity AD trial will be presented in November at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Congress.
 

Incremental benefit

Responding to the findings, the Alzheimer’s Association said in a statement that it “enthusiastically welcomes” the positive findings. It noted that these are “the most encouraging results in clinical trials treating the underlying causes of Alzheimer’s to date.

“For people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s, this treatment has the potential to change the course of the disease in a clinically meaningful way. These results indicate lecanemab may give people more time at or near their full abilities to participate in daily life, remain independent and make future health care decisions,” the Alzheimer’s Association added.

Also weighing in, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said in a release that “the combination of the biomarker change – reduced amyloid – plus slowing of cognitive decline in this study is encouraging news for the 57 million patients around the world living with Alzheimer’s.

“However, amyloid-clearing drugs will provide an incremental benefit at best, and there is still a pressing need for the next generation of drugs focused on other targets based on our knowledge of the biology of aging,” Dr. Fillit cautioned.

“We are optimistic about the future as many of these drugs are in development, with 75% of drugs in the pipeline now targeting nonamyloid pathways of neurodegeneration,” he added.

In July 2022, the Food and Drug Administration accepted Eisai’s biologics license application for lecanemab under the accelerated approval pathway and granted priority review. Lecanemab has a prescription Drugs User Fee Act action date of Jan. 6, 2023.

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

Lecanemab (Eisai/Biogen), an investigational amyloid-clearing monoclonal antibody, reduced cognitive decline by 27%, compared with placebo and decreased amyloid levels in the brain of adults enrolled in a phase 3 trial.

The Clarity AD trial included 1,795 adults with early AD and confirmed amyloid pathology in the brain. Treatment consisted of lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly or matching placebo.

Treatment with lecanemab met the primary endpoint, reducing clinical decline on the global cognitive and functional scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), at 18 months by 27%, compared with placebo, with a treatment difference in the score change of –0.45 (P = .00005), the companies reported.

Starting as early as 6 months, across all time points, treatment with lecanemab yielded highly statistically significant changes in CDR-SB from baseline, compared with placebo (all P < .01).

The study also met all key secondary endpoints with highly statistically significant results, compared with placebo (P < .01).

Key secondary endpoints, in comparison with placebo, were change from baseline at 18 months in amyloid levels in the brain measured by amyloid PET, the AD Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale14 (ADAS-cog14), the AD Composite Score (ADCOMS), and the AD Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment (ADCS MCI-ADL).
 

Imaging abnormalities within expectations

Overall, rates of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) related to lecanemab were “within expectations,” the companies said.

The incidence of ARIA related to edema (ARIA-E) was 12.5% in the lecanemab group and 1.7% in the placebo group.

The incidence of symptomatic ARIA-E was 2.8% and 0.0%, respectively, and the rate of cerebral hemorrhage (ARIA-H) was 17.0% and 8.7%. The total incidence of ARIA (ARIA-E and/or ARIA-H) was 21.3% in the lecanemab group and 9.3% in the placebo group.

Full results of the Clarity AD trial will be presented in November at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Congress.
 

Incremental benefit

Responding to the findings, the Alzheimer’s Association said in a statement that it “enthusiastically welcomes” the positive findings. It noted that these are “the most encouraging results in clinical trials treating the underlying causes of Alzheimer’s to date.

“For people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s, this treatment has the potential to change the course of the disease in a clinically meaningful way. These results indicate lecanemab may give people more time at or near their full abilities to participate in daily life, remain independent and make future health care decisions,” the Alzheimer’s Association added.

Also weighing in, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said in a release that “the combination of the biomarker change – reduced amyloid – plus slowing of cognitive decline in this study is encouraging news for the 57 million patients around the world living with Alzheimer’s.

“However, amyloid-clearing drugs will provide an incremental benefit at best, and there is still a pressing need for the next generation of drugs focused on other targets based on our knowledge of the biology of aging,” Dr. Fillit cautioned.

“We are optimistic about the future as many of these drugs are in development, with 75% of drugs in the pipeline now targeting nonamyloid pathways of neurodegeneration,” he added.

In July 2022, the Food and Drug Administration accepted Eisai’s biologics license application for lecanemab under the accelerated approval pathway and granted priority review. Lecanemab has a prescription Drugs User Fee Act action date of Jan. 6, 2023.

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

LONDON – A little over a decade ago, Four Seasons Health Care was among the largest long-term care home companies in Britain, operating 500 sites with 20,000 residents and more than 60 specialist centers. Domestic and global private equity investors had supercharged the company’s growth, betting that the rising needs of aging Britons would yield big returns.

Within weeks, the Four Seasons brand may be finished.

Christie & Co., a commercial real estate broker, splashed a summer sale across its website that signaled the demise: The last 111 Four Seasons facilities in England, Scotland, and Jersey were on the market. Already sold were its 29 homes in Northern Ireland.

Four Seasons collapsed after years of private equity investors rolling in one after another to buy its business, sell its real estate, and at times wrest multimillion-dollar profits through complex debt schemes – until the last big equity fund, Terra Firma, which in 2012 paid about $1.3 billion for the company, was caught short.

In a country where government health care is a right, the Four Seasons story exemplifies the high-stakes rise – and, ultimately, fall – of private equity investment in health and social services. Hanging over society’s most vulnerable patients, these heavily leveraged deals failed to account for the cost of their care. Private equity firms are known for making a profit on quick-turnaround investments.

“People often say: ‘Why have American investors, as well as professional investors here and in other countries, poured so much into this sector?’ I think they were dazzled by the potential of the demographics,” said Nick Hood, an analyst at Opus Restructuring & Insolvency in London, which advises care homes – the British equivalent of U.S. nursing homes or assisted living facilities. They “saw the baby boomers aging and thought there would be infinite demands.”

What they missed, Mr. Hood said, “was that about half of all the residents in U.K. homes are funded by the government in one way or another. They aren’t private pay – and they’ve got no money.”
 

Residents as ‘revenue streams’

As in the United States, long-term care homes in Britain serve a mixed market of public- and private-pay residents, and those whose balance sheets rest heavily on government payments are stressed even in better economic times. Andrew Dobbie, a community officer for Unison, a union that represents care home workers, said private equity investors often see homes like Four Seasons as having “two revenue streams, the properties themselves and the residents,” with efficiencies to exploit.

But investors don’t always understand what caregivers do, he said, or that older residents require more time than spreadsheets have calculated. “That’s a problem when you are looking at operating care homes,” Mr. Dobbie said. “Care workers need to have soft skills to work with a vulnerable group of people. It’s not the same skills as stocking shelves in a supermarket.”

A recent study, funded in part by Unison and conducted by University of Surrey researchers, found big changes in the quality of care after private equity investments. More than a dozen staff members, who weren’t identified by name or facility, said companies were “cutting corners” to curb costs because their priority was profit. Staffers said “these changes meant residents sometimes went without the appropriate care, timely medication or sufficient sanitary supplies.”

In August, the House of Commons received a sobering account: The number of adults 65 and older who will need care is speedily rising, estimated to go from 3.5 million in 2018 to 5.2 million in 2038. Yet workers at care homes are among the lowest paid in health care.

“The covid-19 pandemic shone a light on the adult social care sector,” according to the parliamentary report, which noted that “many frustrated and burnt out care workers left” for better-paying jobs. The report’s advice in a year of soaring inflation and energy costs? The government should add “at least £7 billion a year” – more than $8 billion – or risk deterioration of care.

Britain’s care homes are separate from the much-lauded National Health Service, funded by the government. Care homes rely on support from local authorities, akin to counties in the United States. But they have seen a sharp drop in funding from the British government, which cut a third of its payments in the past decade. When the pandemic hit, the differences were apparent: Care home workers were not afforded masks, gloves, or gowns to shield them from the deadly virus.

Years ago, care homes were largely run by families or local entities. In the 1990s, the government promoted privatization, triggering investments and consolidations. Today, private equity firms own three of the country’s five biggest care home providers.

Chris Thomas, a research fellow at the Institute for Public Policy Research, said investors benefited from scant financial oversight. “The accounting practices are horrendously complicated and meant to be complicated,” he said. Local authorities try “to regulate more, but they don’t have the expertise.”
 

The financial shuffle

At Four Seasons, the speed of change was dizzying. From 2004 to 2017, big money came and went, with revenue at times threaded through multiple offshore vehicles. Among the groups that owned Four Seasons, in part or in its entirety: British private equity firm Alchemy Partners; Allianz Capital Partners, a German private equity firm; Three Delta, an investment fund backed by Qatar; the American hedge fund Monarch Alternative Capital; and Terra Firma, the British private equity group that wallowed in debt demands. H/2 Capital Partners, a hedge fund in Connecticut, was Four Seasons’ main creditor and took over. By 2019, Four Seasons was managed by insolvency experts.

Pressed on whether Four Seasons would exist in any form after the current sale of its property and businesses, MHP Communications, representing the company, said in an email: “It is too early in the process to speculate about the future of the brand.”

Vivek Kotecha, an accountant who has examined the Four Seasons financial shuffle and coauthored the Unison report, said private equity investment – in homes for older residents and, increasingly, in facilities for troubled children – is now part of the financial mainstream. The consulting firm McKinsey in 2022estimated that private markets manage nearly $10 trillion in assets, making them a dominant force in global markets.

“What you find in America with private equity is much the same here,” said Mr. Kotecha, the founder of Trinava Consulting in London. “They are often the same firms, doing the same things.” What was remarkable about Four Seasons was the enormous liability from high-yield bonds that underpinned the deal – one equaling $514 million at 8.75% interest and another for $277 million at 12.75% interest.

Guy Hands, the high-flying British founder of Terra Firma, bought Four Seasons in 2012, soon after losing an epic court battle with Citigroup over the purchase price of the music company EMI Group. Terra Firma acquired the care homes and then a gardening business with more than 100 stores. Neither proved easy, or good, bets. Hands, a Londoner who moved offshore to Guernsey, declined through a representative to discuss Four Seasons.

Mr. Kotecha, however, helped the BBC try to make sense of Four Seasons’ holdings by tracking financial filings. It was “the most complicated spreadsheet I’ve ever seen,” Mr. Kotecha said. “I think there were more subsidiaries involved in Four Seasons’ care homes than there were with General Motors in Europe.”

As Britain’s small homes were swept up in consolidations, some financial practices were dubious. At times, businesses sold the buildings as lease-back deals – not a problem at first – that, after multiple purchases, left operators paying rent with heavy interest that sapped operating budgets. By 2020, some care homes were estimated to be spending as much as 16% of their bed fees on debt payments, according to parliamentary testimony this year.

How could that happen? In part, for-profit providers – backed by private-equity groups and other corporations – had subsidiaries of their parent companies act as lender, setting the rates.

Britain’s elder care was unrecognizable within a generation. By 2022, private-equity companies alone accounted for 55,000 beds, or about 12.6% of the total for-profit care beds for older people in the United Kingdom, according to LaingBuisson, a health care consultancy. LaingBuisson calculated that the average residential care home fee as of February 2022 was about $44,700 a year; the average nursing home fee was $62,275 a year.

From 1980 to 2018, the number of residential care beds provided by local authorities fell 88% – from 141,719 to 17,100, according to the nonprofit Centre for Health and the Public Interest. Independent operators – nonprofits and for-profits – moved in, it said, controlling 243,000 beds by 2018. Nursing homes saw a similar shift: Private providers accounted for 194,100 beds in 2018, compared with 25,500 decades earlier.
 

Beyond government control

British lawmakers in the winter of 2021-2022 tried – and failed – to bolster financial reporting rules for care homes, including banning the use of government funds to pay off debt.

“I don’t have a problem with offshore companies that make profits if they offer good services. I don’t have a problem with private equity and hedge funds who deliver good returns to their shareholders,” Ros Altmann, a Conservative Party member in the House of Lords and a pension expert, said in a February debate. “I do have a problem if those companies are taking advantage of some of the most vulnerable people in our society without oversight, without controls.”

She cited Four Seasons as an example of how regulators “have no control over the financial models that are used.” Ms. Altmann warned that economic headwinds could worsen matters: “We now have very heavily debt-laden [homes] in an environment where interest rates are heading upward.”

In August, the Bank of England raised borrowing rates. It now forecasts double-digit inflation – as much as 11% – through 2023.

And that leaves care home owner Robert Kilgour pensive about whether government grasps the risks and possibilities that the sector is facing. “It’s a struggle, and it’s becoming more of a struggle,” he said. A global energy crisis is the latest unexpected emergency. Mr. Kilgour said he recently signed electricity contracts, for April 2023, at rates that will rise by 200%. That means an extra $2,400 a day in utility costs for his homes.

Mr. Kilgour founded Four Seasons, opening its first home, in Fife, Scotland, in 1989. His ambition for its growth was modest: “Ten by 2000.” That changed in 1999 when Alchemy swooped in to expand nationally. Mr. Kilgour had left Four Seasons by 2004, turning to other ventures.

Still, he saw opportunity in elder care and opened Renaissance Care, which now operates 16 homes with 750 beds in Scotland. “I missed it,” he said in an interview in London. “It’s people and it’s property, and I like that.”

“People asked me if I had any regrets about selling to private equity. Well, no, the people I dealt with were very fair, very straight. There were no shenanigans,” Mr. Kilgour said, noting that Alchemy made money but invested as well.

Mr. Kilgour said the pandemic motivated him to improve his business. He is spending millions on new LED lighting and boilers, as well as training staffers on digital record-keeping, all to winnow costs. He increased hourly wages by 5%, but employees have suggested other ways to retain staff: shorter shifts and workdays that fit school schedules or allow them to care for their own older relatives.

Debates over whether the government should move back into elder care make little sense to Mr. Kilgour. Britain has had private care for decades, and he doesn’t see that changing. Instead, operators need help balancing private and publicly funded beds “so you have a blended rate for care and some certainty in the business.”

Consolidations are slowing, he said, which might be part of a long-overdue reckoning. “The idea of 200, 300, 400 care homes – that big is good and big is best – those days are gone,” Mr. Kilgour said.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

LONDON – A little over a decade ago, Four Seasons Health Care was among the largest long-term care home companies in Britain, operating 500 sites with 20,000 residents and more than 60 specialist centers. Domestic and global private equity investors had supercharged the company’s growth, betting that the rising needs of aging Britons would yield big returns.

Within weeks, the Four Seasons brand may be finished.

Christie & Co., a commercial real estate broker, splashed a summer sale across its website that signaled the demise: The last 111 Four Seasons facilities in England, Scotland, and Jersey were on the market. Already sold were its 29 homes in Northern Ireland.

Four Seasons collapsed after years of private equity investors rolling in one after another to buy its business, sell its real estate, and at times wrest multimillion-dollar profits through complex debt schemes – until the last big equity fund, Terra Firma, which in 2012 paid about $1.3 billion for the company, was caught short.

In a country where government health care is a right, the Four Seasons story exemplifies the high-stakes rise – and, ultimately, fall – of private equity investment in health and social services. Hanging over society’s most vulnerable patients, these heavily leveraged deals failed to account for the cost of their care. Private equity firms are known for making a profit on quick-turnaround investments.

“People often say: ‘Why have American investors, as well as professional investors here and in other countries, poured so much into this sector?’ I think they were dazzled by the potential of the demographics,” said Nick Hood, an analyst at Opus Restructuring & Insolvency in London, which advises care homes – the British equivalent of U.S. nursing homes or assisted living facilities. They “saw the baby boomers aging and thought there would be infinite demands.”

What they missed, Mr. Hood said, “was that about half of all the residents in U.K. homes are funded by the government in one way or another. They aren’t private pay – and they’ve got no money.”
 

Residents as ‘revenue streams’

As in the United States, long-term care homes in Britain serve a mixed market of public- and private-pay residents, and those whose balance sheets rest heavily on government payments are stressed even in better economic times. Andrew Dobbie, a community officer for Unison, a union that represents care home workers, said private equity investors often see homes like Four Seasons as having “two revenue streams, the properties themselves and the residents,” with efficiencies to exploit.

But investors don’t always understand what caregivers do, he said, or that older residents require more time than spreadsheets have calculated. “That’s a problem when you are looking at operating care homes,” Mr. Dobbie said. “Care workers need to have soft skills to work with a vulnerable group of people. It’s not the same skills as stocking shelves in a supermarket.”

A recent study, funded in part by Unison and conducted by University of Surrey researchers, found big changes in the quality of care after private equity investments. More than a dozen staff members, who weren’t identified by name or facility, said companies were “cutting corners” to curb costs because their priority was profit. Staffers said “these changes meant residents sometimes went without the appropriate care, timely medication or sufficient sanitary supplies.”

In August, the House of Commons received a sobering account: The number of adults 65 and older who will need care is speedily rising, estimated to go from 3.5 million in 2018 to 5.2 million in 2038. Yet workers at care homes are among the lowest paid in health care.

“The covid-19 pandemic shone a light on the adult social care sector,” according to the parliamentary report, which noted that “many frustrated and burnt out care workers left” for better-paying jobs. The report’s advice in a year of soaring inflation and energy costs? The government should add “at least £7 billion a year” – more than $8 billion – or risk deterioration of care.

Britain’s care homes are separate from the much-lauded National Health Service, funded by the government. Care homes rely on support from local authorities, akin to counties in the United States. But they have seen a sharp drop in funding from the British government, which cut a third of its payments in the past decade. When the pandemic hit, the differences were apparent: Care home workers were not afforded masks, gloves, or gowns to shield them from the deadly virus.

Years ago, care homes were largely run by families or local entities. In the 1990s, the government promoted privatization, triggering investments and consolidations. Today, private equity firms own three of the country’s five biggest care home providers.

Chris Thomas, a research fellow at the Institute for Public Policy Research, said investors benefited from scant financial oversight. “The accounting practices are horrendously complicated and meant to be complicated,” he said. Local authorities try “to regulate more, but they don’t have the expertise.”
 

The financial shuffle

At Four Seasons, the speed of change was dizzying. From 2004 to 2017, big money came and went, with revenue at times threaded through multiple offshore vehicles. Among the groups that owned Four Seasons, in part or in its entirety: British private equity firm Alchemy Partners; Allianz Capital Partners, a German private equity firm; Three Delta, an investment fund backed by Qatar; the American hedge fund Monarch Alternative Capital; and Terra Firma, the British private equity group that wallowed in debt demands. H/2 Capital Partners, a hedge fund in Connecticut, was Four Seasons’ main creditor and took over. By 2019, Four Seasons was managed by insolvency experts.

Pressed on whether Four Seasons would exist in any form after the current sale of its property and businesses, MHP Communications, representing the company, said in an email: “It is too early in the process to speculate about the future of the brand.”

Vivek Kotecha, an accountant who has examined the Four Seasons financial shuffle and coauthored the Unison report, said private equity investment – in homes for older residents and, increasingly, in facilities for troubled children – is now part of the financial mainstream. The consulting firm McKinsey in 2022estimated that private markets manage nearly $10 trillion in assets, making them a dominant force in global markets.

“What you find in America with private equity is much the same here,” said Mr. Kotecha, the founder of Trinava Consulting in London. “They are often the same firms, doing the same things.” What was remarkable about Four Seasons was the enormous liability from high-yield bonds that underpinned the deal – one equaling $514 million at 8.75% interest and another for $277 million at 12.75% interest.

Guy Hands, the high-flying British founder of Terra Firma, bought Four Seasons in 2012, soon after losing an epic court battle with Citigroup over the purchase price of the music company EMI Group. Terra Firma acquired the care homes and then a gardening business with more than 100 stores. Neither proved easy, or good, bets. Hands, a Londoner who moved offshore to Guernsey, declined through a representative to discuss Four Seasons.

Mr. Kotecha, however, helped the BBC try to make sense of Four Seasons’ holdings by tracking financial filings. It was “the most complicated spreadsheet I’ve ever seen,” Mr. Kotecha said. “I think there were more subsidiaries involved in Four Seasons’ care homes than there were with General Motors in Europe.”

As Britain’s small homes were swept up in consolidations, some financial practices were dubious. At times, businesses sold the buildings as lease-back deals – not a problem at first – that, after multiple purchases, left operators paying rent with heavy interest that sapped operating budgets. By 2020, some care homes were estimated to be spending as much as 16% of their bed fees on debt payments, according to parliamentary testimony this year.

How could that happen? In part, for-profit providers – backed by private-equity groups and other corporations – had subsidiaries of their parent companies act as lender, setting the rates.

Britain’s elder care was unrecognizable within a generation. By 2022, private-equity companies alone accounted for 55,000 beds, or about 12.6% of the total for-profit care beds for older people in the United Kingdom, according to LaingBuisson, a health care consultancy. LaingBuisson calculated that the average residential care home fee as of February 2022 was about $44,700 a year; the average nursing home fee was $62,275 a year.

From 1980 to 2018, the number of residential care beds provided by local authorities fell 88% – from 141,719 to 17,100, according to the nonprofit Centre for Health and the Public Interest. Independent operators – nonprofits and for-profits – moved in, it said, controlling 243,000 beds by 2018. Nursing homes saw a similar shift: Private providers accounted for 194,100 beds in 2018, compared with 25,500 decades earlier.
 

Beyond government control

British lawmakers in the winter of 2021-2022 tried – and failed – to bolster financial reporting rules for care homes, including banning the use of government funds to pay off debt.

“I don’t have a problem with offshore companies that make profits if they offer good services. I don’t have a problem with private equity and hedge funds who deliver good returns to their shareholders,” Ros Altmann, a Conservative Party member in the House of Lords and a pension expert, said in a February debate. “I do have a problem if those companies are taking advantage of some of the most vulnerable people in our society without oversight, without controls.”

She cited Four Seasons as an example of how regulators “have no control over the financial models that are used.” Ms. Altmann warned that economic headwinds could worsen matters: “We now have very heavily debt-laden [homes] in an environment where interest rates are heading upward.”

In August, the Bank of England raised borrowing rates. It now forecasts double-digit inflation – as much as 11% – through 2023.

And that leaves care home owner Robert Kilgour pensive about whether government grasps the risks and possibilities that the sector is facing. “It’s a struggle, and it’s becoming more of a struggle,” he said. A global energy crisis is the latest unexpected emergency. Mr. Kilgour said he recently signed electricity contracts, for April 2023, at rates that will rise by 200%. That means an extra $2,400 a day in utility costs for his homes.

Mr. Kilgour founded Four Seasons, opening its first home, in Fife, Scotland, in 1989. His ambition for its growth was modest: “Ten by 2000.” That changed in 1999 when Alchemy swooped in to expand nationally. Mr. Kilgour had left Four Seasons by 2004, turning to other ventures.

Still, he saw opportunity in elder care and opened Renaissance Care, which now operates 16 homes with 750 beds in Scotland. “I missed it,” he said in an interview in London. “It’s people and it’s property, and I like that.”

“People asked me if I had any regrets about selling to private equity. Well, no, the people I dealt with were very fair, very straight. There were no shenanigans,” Mr. Kilgour said, noting that Alchemy made money but invested as well.

Mr. Kilgour said the pandemic motivated him to improve his business. He is spending millions on new LED lighting and boilers, as well as training staffers on digital record-keeping, all to winnow costs. He increased hourly wages by 5%, but employees have suggested other ways to retain staff: shorter shifts and workdays that fit school schedules or allow them to care for their own older relatives.

Debates over whether the government should move back into elder care make little sense to Mr. Kilgour. Britain has had private care for decades, and he doesn’t see that changing. Instead, operators need help balancing private and publicly funded beds “so you have a blended rate for care and some certainty in the business.”

Consolidations are slowing, he said, which might be part of a long-overdue reckoning. “The idea of 200, 300, 400 care homes – that big is good and big is best – those days are gone,” Mr. Kilgour said.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

LONDON – A little over a decade ago, Four Seasons Health Care was among the largest long-term care home companies in Britain, operating 500 sites with 20,000 residents and more than 60 specialist centers. Domestic and global private equity investors had supercharged the company’s growth, betting that the rising needs of aging Britons would yield big returns.

Within weeks, the Four Seasons brand may be finished.

Christie & Co., a commercial real estate broker, splashed a summer sale across its website that signaled the demise: The last 111 Four Seasons facilities in England, Scotland, and Jersey were on the market. Already sold were its 29 homes in Northern Ireland.

Four Seasons collapsed after years of private equity investors rolling in one after another to buy its business, sell its real estate, and at times wrest multimillion-dollar profits through complex debt schemes – until the last big equity fund, Terra Firma, which in 2012 paid about $1.3 billion for the company, was caught short.

In a country where government health care is a right, the Four Seasons story exemplifies the high-stakes rise – and, ultimately, fall – of private equity investment in health and social services. Hanging over society’s most vulnerable patients, these heavily leveraged deals failed to account for the cost of their care. Private equity firms are known for making a profit on quick-turnaround investments.

“People often say: ‘Why have American investors, as well as professional investors here and in other countries, poured so much into this sector?’ I think they were dazzled by the potential of the demographics,” said Nick Hood, an analyst at Opus Restructuring & Insolvency in London, which advises care homes – the British equivalent of U.S. nursing homes or assisted living facilities. They “saw the baby boomers aging and thought there would be infinite demands.”

What they missed, Mr. Hood said, “was that about half of all the residents in U.K. homes are funded by the government in one way or another. They aren’t private pay – and they’ve got no money.”
 

Residents as ‘revenue streams’

As in the United States, long-term care homes in Britain serve a mixed market of public- and private-pay residents, and those whose balance sheets rest heavily on government payments are stressed even in better economic times. Andrew Dobbie, a community officer for Unison, a union that represents care home workers, said private equity investors often see homes like Four Seasons as having “two revenue streams, the properties themselves and the residents,” with efficiencies to exploit.

But investors don’t always understand what caregivers do, he said, or that older residents require more time than spreadsheets have calculated. “That’s a problem when you are looking at operating care homes,” Mr. Dobbie said. “Care workers need to have soft skills to work with a vulnerable group of people. It’s not the same skills as stocking shelves in a supermarket.”

A recent study, funded in part by Unison and conducted by University of Surrey researchers, found big changes in the quality of care after private equity investments. More than a dozen staff members, who weren’t identified by name or facility, said companies were “cutting corners” to curb costs because their priority was profit. Staffers said “these changes meant residents sometimes went without the appropriate care, timely medication or sufficient sanitary supplies.”

In August, the House of Commons received a sobering account: The number of adults 65 and older who will need care is speedily rising, estimated to go from 3.5 million in 2018 to 5.2 million in 2038. Yet workers at care homes are among the lowest paid in health care.

“The covid-19 pandemic shone a light on the adult social care sector,” according to the parliamentary report, which noted that “many frustrated and burnt out care workers left” for better-paying jobs. The report’s advice in a year of soaring inflation and energy costs? The government should add “at least £7 billion a year” – more than $8 billion – or risk deterioration of care.

Britain’s care homes are separate from the much-lauded National Health Service, funded by the government. Care homes rely on support from local authorities, akin to counties in the United States. But they have seen a sharp drop in funding from the British government, which cut a third of its payments in the past decade. When the pandemic hit, the differences were apparent: Care home workers were not afforded masks, gloves, or gowns to shield them from the deadly virus.

Years ago, care homes were largely run by families or local entities. In the 1990s, the government promoted privatization, triggering investments and consolidations. Today, private equity firms own three of the country’s five biggest care home providers.

Chris Thomas, a research fellow at the Institute for Public Policy Research, said investors benefited from scant financial oversight. “The accounting practices are horrendously complicated and meant to be complicated,” he said. Local authorities try “to regulate more, but they don’t have the expertise.”
 

The financial shuffle

At Four Seasons, the speed of change was dizzying. From 2004 to 2017, big money came and went, with revenue at times threaded through multiple offshore vehicles. Among the groups that owned Four Seasons, in part or in its entirety: British private equity firm Alchemy Partners; Allianz Capital Partners, a German private equity firm; Three Delta, an investment fund backed by Qatar; the American hedge fund Monarch Alternative Capital; and Terra Firma, the British private equity group that wallowed in debt demands. H/2 Capital Partners, a hedge fund in Connecticut, was Four Seasons’ main creditor and took over. By 2019, Four Seasons was managed by insolvency experts.

Pressed on whether Four Seasons would exist in any form after the current sale of its property and businesses, MHP Communications, representing the company, said in an email: “It is too early in the process to speculate about the future of the brand.”

Vivek Kotecha, an accountant who has examined the Four Seasons financial shuffle and coauthored the Unison report, said private equity investment – in homes for older residents and, increasingly, in facilities for troubled children – is now part of the financial mainstream. The consulting firm McKinsey in 2022estimated that private markets manage nearly $10 trillion in assets, making them a dominant force in global markets.

“What you find in America with private equity is much the same here,” said Mr. Kotecha, the founder of Trinava Consulting in London. “They are often the same firms, doing the same things.” What was remarkable about Four Seasons was the enormous liability from high-yield bonds that underpinned the deal – one equaling $514 million at 8.75% interest and another for $277 million at 12.75% interest.

Guy Hands, the high-flying British founder of Terra Firma, bought Four Seasons in 2012, soon after losing an epic court battle with Citigroup over the purchase price of the music company EMI Group. Terra Firma acquired the care homes and then a gardening business with more than 100 stores. Neither proved easy, or good, bets. Hands, a Londoner who moved offshore to Guernsey, declined through a representative to discuss Four Seasons.

Mr. Kotecha, however, helped the BBC try to make sense of Four Seasons’ holdings by tracking financial filings. It was “the most complicated spreadsheet I’ve ever seen,” Mr. Kotecha said. “I think there were more subsidiaries involved in Four Seasons’ care homes than there were with General Motors in Europe.”

As Britain’s small homes were swept up in consolidations, some financial practices were dubious. At times, businesses sold the buildings as lease-back deals – not a problem at first – that, after multiple purchases, left operators paying rent with heavy interest that sapped operating budgets. By 2020, some care homes were estimated to be spending as much as 16% of their bed fees on debt payments, according to parliamentary testimony this year.

How could that happen? In part, for-profit providers – backed by private-equity groups and other corporations – had subsidiaries of their parent companies act as lender, setting the rates.

Britain’s elder care was unrecognizable within a generation. By 2022, private-equity companies alone accounted for 55,000 beds, or about 12.6% of the total for-profit care beds for older people in the United Kingdom, according to LaingBuisson, a health care consultancy. LaingBuisson calculated that the average residential care home fee as of February 2022 was about $44,700 a year; the average nursing home fee was $62,275 a year.

From 1980 to 2018, the number of residential care beds provided by local authorities fell 88% – from 141,719 to 17,100, according to the nonprofit Centre for Health and the Public Interest. Independent operators – nonprofits and for-profits – moved in, it said, controlling 243,000 beds by 2018. Nursing homes saw a similar shift: Private providers accounted for 194,100 beds in 2018, compared with 25,500 decades earlier.
 

Beyond government control

British lawmakers in the winter of 2021-2022 tried – and failed – to bolster financial reporting rules for care homes, including banning the use of government funds to pay off debt.

“I don’t have a problem with offshore companies that make profits if they offer good services. I don’t have a problem with private equity and hedge funds who deliver good returns to their shareholders,” Ros Altmann, a Conservative Party member in the House of Lords and a pension expert, said in a February debate. “I do have a problem if those companies are taking advantage of some of the most vulnerable people in our society without oversight, without controls.”

She cited Four Seasons as an example of how regulators “have no control over the financial models that are used.” Ms. Altmann warned that economic headwinds could worsen matters: “We now have very heavily debt-laden [homes] in an environment where interest rates are heading upward.”

In August, the Bank of England raised borrowing rates. It now forecasts double-digit inflation – as much as 11% – through 2023.

And that leaves care home owner Robert Kilgour pensive about whether government grasps the risks and possibilities that the sector is facing. “It’s a struggle, and it’s becoming more of a struggle,” he said. A global energy crisis is the latest unexpected emergency. Mr. Kilgour said he recently signed electricity contracts, for April 2023, at rates that will rise by 200%. That means an extra $2,400 a day in utility costs for his homes.

Mr. Kilgour founded Four Seasons, opening its first home, in Fife, Scotland, in 1989. His ambition for its growth was modest: “Ten by 2000.” That changed in 1999 when Alchemy swooped in to expand nationally. Mr. Kilgour had left Four Seasons by 2004, turning to other ventures.

Still, he saw opportunity in elder care and opened Renaissance Care, which now operates 16 homes with 750 beds in Scotland. “I missed it,” he said in an interview in London. “It’s people and it’s property, and I like that.”

“People asked me if I had any regrets about selling to private equity. Well, no, the people I dealt with were very fair, very straight. There were no shenanigans,” Mr. Kilgour said, noting that Alchemy made money but invested as well.

Mr. Kilgour said the pandemic motivated him to improve his business. He is spending millions on new LED lighting and boilers, as well as training staffers on digital record-keeping, all to winnow costs. He increased hourly wages by 5%, but employees have suggested other ways to retain staff: shorter shifts and workdays that fit school schedules or allow them to care for their own older relatives.

Debates over whether the government should move back into elder care make little sense to Mr. Kilgour. Britain has had private care for decades, and he doesn’t see that changing. Instead, operators need help balancing private and publicly funded beds “so you have a blended rate for care and some certainty in the business.”

Consolidations are slowing, he said, which might be part of a long-overdue reckoning. “The idea of 200, 300, 400 care homes – that big is good and big is best – those days are gone,” Mr. Kilgour said.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

An athletic coach stands in front of a packed gym full of high school students.
 

“Don’t have sex,” he instructs, “because you will get pregnant and die. Don’t have sex in the missionary position. Don’t have sex standing up. Just don’t do it, promise? Okay, everybody take some rubbers.”

Sad to say, this scene from the 2004 movie “Mean Girls” bears a striking resemblance to the actual sex education courses taught in schools across the United States today. In fact, things may have gotten measurably worse.

National data recently published by the Guttmacher Institute showed that adolescents were less likely to receive adequate sex education from 2015 to 2019 than they were in 1995. Only half of kids aged 15-19 received sex education that met minimum standards recommended by the Department of Health & Human Services, and fewer than half were given this information before having sex for the first time. With such a vast learning gap, it is no surprise that the United States has some of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections in the developed world.

Concerned and motivated by this need for sex education, physicians and other medical professionals are stepping in to fill the void, offering sexual health information through a range of methods to students of all ages (some a lot older than one may think). It is a calling that takes them outside their hospitals and exam rooms into workshops and through educational materials, video, and social media content created from scratch.

“The fact that we’re able to go in and provide factual, scientific, important information that can affect the trajectory of someone’s life is powerful,” said Julia Rossen, part of a contingent of med students at Brown University, Providence, R.I., who now teach sex ed as an elective.

Their goals are not just about protecting health. Many are also teaching about other topics commonly ignored in sex education classes, such as consent, pleasure, LGBTQ+ identities, and cultural competence. There is a mutually beneficial relationship, they say, between their sex education work and their medical practice.
 

Changing the status quo

A jumble of state laws govern how and when schools should offer sex education courses. Individual school districts often make the final decisions about their content, creating even more inconsistent standards. Only 29 states and the District of Columbia mandate sex education, and 13 of those do not require that it be medically accurate. Abstinence-only education, which has been shown to be ineffective, is exclusively taught in 16 states.

Without formal instruction, many young people must learn about sex from family members, who may be unwilling, or they may share knowledge between themselves, which is often incorrect, or navigate the limitless information and misinformation available on the internet.

The consequences of this were apparent to several medical students at Brown University in 2013. At the time, the rate of teenage pregnancy across Rhode Island was 1 in 100, but in the small city of Central Falls, it was 1 in 25. Aiming to improve this, the group created a comprehensive sex education program for a Central Falls middle school that was taught by medical student volunteers.

The Sex Ed by Brown Med program continues today. It consists of eight in-person sessions. Topics include anatomy, contraception, STIs, sexual decision-making, consent, sexual violence, and sexual and gender identity. Through this program, as well as other factors, the Central Falls teenage pregnancy rate declined to 1.6 in 100 from 2016 to 2020, according to the Rhode Island Department of Health.

“Historically, sexual education has been politicized,” said Ms. Rossen, one of the current program leaders. “It’s been at the discretion of a lot of different factors that aren’t under the control of the communities that are actually receiving the education.”

Among seventh graders, the teachers say they encounter different levels of maturity. But they feel that the kids are more receptive and open with younger adults who, like them, are still students. Some volunteers recall the flaws in their own sex education, particularly regarding topics such as consent and gender and sexual identity, and they believe middle school is the time to begin the sexual health conversation. “By the time you’re talking to college-age students, it’s pretty much too late,” said another group leader, Benjamin Stone.

Mr. Stone feels that practicing having these often-awkward discussions enhances their clinical skills as physicians. “Sex and sexual history are part of the comprehensive medical interview. People want to have these conversations, and they’re looking for someone to open the door. The kids are excited that we’re opening that door for them. And I think patients feel the same way.”
 

Conquering social media

Opening the door has been more like releasing a floodgate for Danielle Jones, MD, an ob.gyn. physician who is originally from Texas but who moved to New Zealand in 2021. Known on social media as “Mama Doctor Jones,” she has garnered more than 3 million followers across YouTube, TikTok, Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Dr. Jones produces short, friendly, entertaining videos on a range of reproductive health and sex education topics. They appeal to an adolescent audience hungry for a trustworthy voice on issues such as,: “5 ‘Strange’ Things Your Vagina Does That Are NORMAL” and “Condom Broke ... Now What?”

Dr. Jones uses her platform to debunk some of the misleading and inaccurate sexual health information being taught in classrooms, by other social media influencers, and that is found on the internet in general. Her no-nonsense-style videos call out such myths as being unable to pee with a tampon in, Plan B emergency contraception causing abortions, and COVID-19 vaccines damaging fertility.

“The way sex ed is done in the U.S. in most places is continuing the taboo by making it a one-time discussion or health class,” said Dr. Jones, “particularly if boys and girls are separated. That doesn’t further communication between people or foster an environment where it’s okay to discuss your body and puberty and changes in sexual health in general. And if you can’t talk about it in educational spaces, you’re certainly not going to be comfortable talking about that in a one-on-one situation with another 16-year-old.”

Taking on other taboos, Dr. Jones has been outspoken about abortion and the consequences of the recent Supreme Court decision, both as an ethical issue and a medical one that endangers lives. Raised in a deeply religious family, Dr. Jones said she was indoctrinated with antiabortion views, and it took time for her thinking to evolve “from a scientific and humanistic standpoint.” While working in a Texas private practice, Dr. Jones described being unable to mention abortion online because of fear of losing her patients and for her own safety.

Now free of those constraints, Dr. Jones feels that her videos can be important resources for teachers who may have little health training. And she is enthusiastic about the complementary relationship between her social media work and her clinical practice. “There are conversations I have all the time in the clinic where patients tell me: ‘Nobody’s ever really had this conversation in this way with me. Thank you for explaining that,’ ” said Dr. Jones. “And then I think: ‘Well, now I’ll have it with a hundred thousand other people too.’ ”
 

Promoting pleasure

While not an ob.gyn., discussing sexuality with patients has become a focus for Evelin Dacker, MD, a family physician in Salem, Ore. Dr. Dacker is certified in functional medicine, which takes a holistic and integrative approach. During her training she had a sudden realization: Sexuality had not been discussed at any point during her medical education.

“I recognized that this was a huge gap in how we deal with a person as a human,” Dr. Dacker explained. “Since sexuality plays a role in so many aspects of our humanness, not just having sex.”

Dr. Dacker believes in rethinking sexuality as a fundamental part of overall health, as vital as nutrition or blood pressure. Outside her medical practice, she teaches classes and workshops on sexual health and sex positivity for young adults and other physicians. She has also developed an educational framework for sexual health topics. Dr. Dacker said she frequently confronts the idea that sexuality is only about engaging with another person. She disagrees. Using food as a metaphor, she argues that just as the pleasure of eating something is purely for oneself, sexuality belongs to the individual.

Sexuality can also be a tool for pleasure, which Dr. Dacker believes plays an essential role in physical health. “Pleasure is a medicine,” Dr. Dacker said. “I actually prescribe self-pleasure practices to my patients, so they can start owning it within themselves. Make sure you get 7-8 hours of sleep, do some breathing exercises to help bring down your stress, and do self-pleasure so that you can integrate into your body better.”

She added that the impact of prioritizing one’s own desires, needs, and boundaries can transform how people view their sexuality. Her adult students frequently ask: “Why wasn’t I taught this as a teenager?”
 

Speaking of adult students – An older generation learns new tricks

While the teen cohort is usually the focus, the lack of sex education in previous decades – and the way sexual culture has evolved in that time – have an impact on older groups. Among U.S. adults aged 55 and older, the rate of STIs has more than doubled in the past 10 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While the majority of STI cases still occur among teenagers and young adults, the consistent increase in STIs among older persons is cause for concern among physicians and researchers.

The issue worries Shannon Dowler, MD, a family physician in western North Carolina and chief medical officer for North Carolina Medicaid. Dr. Dowler, who has practiced in an STI clinic throughout her career, began seeing more and more older adults with chlamydia, herpes, and other STIs. Dowler cites several factors behind the rise, including the growing retirement community population, the availability of pharmaceuticals for sexual dysfunction, and the “hook-up culture” that is active on dating apps, which research shows are regularly used by more than a third of adults older than 55.

Dr. Dowler also sees a lack of communication about sexual health between physicians and their older patients. “Older adults are more likely to be in relationship with their physician outside the exam room, especially if they’re in a small community,” Dr. Dowler said. “Sometimes they aren’t as comfortable sharing what their risks are. But we are guilty in medicine all the time of not asking. We assume someone’s older so they’re not having sex anymore. But, in fact, they are, and we’re not taking the time to say: ‘Let’s talk about your sex life. Are you at risk for anything? Are you having any difficulties with sex?’ We tend to avoid it as a health care culture.”

In contrast, Dr. Dowler said she talks about sexual health with anyone who will listen. She teaches classes in private schools and universities and for church youth groups and other physicians. She often finds that public schools are not interested, which she attributes to fear of her discussing things “outside the rule book.”

Dr. Dowler takes creative approaches. In 2017, she released a hip-hop video, “STD’s Never Get Old,” in which she raps about safe sex for older adults. Her video went viral, was mentioned by several news outlets, and received over 50,000 views on YouTube. Dr. Dowler’s latest project is a book, “Never Too Late: Your Guide to Safer Sex after 60,” which is scheduled for publication on Valentine’s Day, 2023.

“It’s sex ed for seniors,” she explained. “It’s that gym class that some people got – I won’t say everyone got – in high school. This is the version for older adults who didn’t get that. There are new infections now that didn’t exist when they had sex education, if they had sex education.”
 

A big subject requires a big mission

For others in the sex education field, physicians are allies in their fight against agendas designed to obstruct or erode sex education. Alison Macklin, director of policy and advocacy at SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change, formerly the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, sees this struggle playing out in school boards and state legislatures across the country. For every comprehensive sex education bill passed or school district victory, there is yet another blocked proposal or restrictive law somewhere else.

Ms. Macklin urged doctors to get more involved locally and to expand their knowledge of sexual health issues by reaching out to organizations such as Planned Parenthood and to be “hyper vigilant” in their own communities.

“Doctors are trusted. People really respect what they have to say,” Ms. Macklin said. “And this is an important time for them to speak up.”

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

An athletic coach stands in front of a packed gym full of high school students.
 

“Don’t have sex,” he instructs, “because you will get pregnant and die. Don’t have sex in the missionary position. Don’t have sex standing up. Just don’t do it, promise? Okay, everybody take some rubbers.”

Sad to say, this scene from the 2004 movie “Mean Girls” bears a striking resemblance to the actual sex education courses taught in schools across the United States today. In fact, things may have gotten measurably worse.

National data recently published by the Guttmacher Institute showed that adolescents were less likely to receive adequate sex education from 2015 to 2019 than they were in 1995. Only half of kids aged 15-19 received sex education that met minimum standards recommended by the Department of Health & Human Services, and fewer than half were given this information before having sex for the first time. With such a vast learning gap, it is no surprise that the United States has some of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections in the developed world.

Concerned and motivated by this need for sex education, physicians and other medical professionals are stepping in to fill the void, offering sexual health information through a range of methods to students of all ages (some a lot older than one may think). It is a calling that takes them outside their hospitals and exam rooms into workshops and through educational materials, video, and social media content created from scratch.

“The fact that we’re able to go in and provide factual, scientific, important information that can affect the trajectory of someone’s life is powerful,” said Julia Rossen, part of a contingent of med students at Brown University, Providence, R.I., who now teach sex ed as an elective.

Their goals are not just about protecting health. Many are also teaching about other topics commonly ignored in sex education classes, such as consent, pleasure, LGBTQ+ identities, and cultural competence. There is a mutually beneficial relationship, they say, between their sex education work and their medical practice.
 

Changing the status quo

A jumble of state laws govern how and when schools should offer sex education courses. Individual school districts often make the final decisions about their content, creating even more inconsistent standards. Only 29 states and the District of Columbia mandate sex education, and 13 of those do not require that it be medically accurate. Abstinence-only education, which has been shown to be ineffective, is exclusively taught in 16 states.

Without formal instruction, many young people must learn about sex from family members, who may be unwilling, or they may share knowledge between themselves, which is often incorrect, or navigate the limitless information and misinformation available on the internet.

The consequences of this were apparent to several medical students at Brown University in 2013. At the time, the rate of teenage pregnancy across Rhode Island was 1 in 100, but in the small city of Central Falls, it was 1 in 25. Aiming to improve this, the group created a comprehensive sex education program for a Central Falls middle school that was taught by medical student volunteers.

The Sex Ed by Brown Med program continues today. It consists of eight in-person sessions. Topics include anatomy, contraception, STIs, sexual decision-making, consent, sexual violence, and sexual and gender identity. Through this program, as well as other factors, the Central Falls teenage pregnancy rate declined to 1.6 in 100 from 2016 to 2020, according to the Rhode Island Department of Health.

“Historically, sexual education has been politicized,” said Ms. Rossen, one of the current program leaders. “It’s been at the discretion of a lot of different factors that aren’t under the control of the communities that are actually receiving the education.”

Among seventh graders, the teachers say they encounter different levels of maturity. But they feel that the kids are more receptive and open with younger adults who, like them, are still students. Some volunteers recall the flaws in their own sex education, particularly regarding topics such as consent and gender and sexual identity, and they believe middle school is the time to begin the sexual health conversation. “By the time you’re talking to college-age students, it’s pretty much too late,” said another group leader, Benjamin Stone.

Mr. Stone feels that practicing having these often-awkward discussions enhances their clinical skills as physicians. “Sex and sexual history are part of the comprehensive medical interview. People want to have these conversations, and they’re looking for someone to open the door. The kids are excited that we’re opening that door for them. And I think patients feel the same way.”
 

Conquering social media

Opening the door has been more like releasing a floodgate for Danielle Jones, MD, an ob.gyn. physician who is originally from Texas but who moved to New Zealand in 2021. Known on social media as “Mama Doctor Jones,” she has garnered more than 3 million followers across YouTube, TikTok, Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Dr. Jones produces short, friendly, entertaining videos on a range of reproductive health and sex education topics. They appeal to an adolescent audience hungry for a trustworthy voice on issues such as,: “5 ‘Strange’ Things Your Vagina Does That Are NORMAL” and “Condom Broke ... Now What?”

Dr. Jones uses her platform to debunk some of the misleading and inaccurate sexual health information being taught in classrooms, by other social media influencers, and that is found on the internet in general. Her no-nonsense-style videos call out such myths as being unable to pee with a tampon in, Plan B emergency contraception causing abortions, and COVID-19 vaccines damaging fertility.

“The way sex ed is done in the U.S. in most places is continuing the taboo by making it a one-time discussion or health class,” said Dr. Jones, “particularly if boys and girls are separated. That doesn’t further communication between people or foster an environment where it’s okay to discuss your body and puberty and changes in sexual health in general. And if you can’t talk about it in educational spaces, you’re certainly not going to be comfortable talking about that in a one-on-one situation with another 16-year-old.”

Taking on other taboos, Dr. Jones has been outspoken about abortion and the consequences of the recent Supreme Court decision, both as an ethical issue and a medical one that endangers lives. Raised in a deeply religious family, Dr. Jones said she was indoctrinated with antiabortion views, and it took time for her thinking to evolve “from a scientific and humanistic standpoint.” While working in a Texas private practice, Dr. Jones described being unable to mention abortion online because of fear of losing her patients and for her own safety.

Now free of those constraints, Dr. Jones feels that her videos can be important resources for teachers who may have little health training. And she is enthusiastic about the complementary relationship between her social media work and her clinical practice. “There are conversations I have all the time in the clinic where patients tell me: ‘Nobody’s ever really had this conversation in this way with me. Thank you for explaining that,’ ” said Dr. Jones. “And then I think: ‘Well, now I’ll have it with a hundred thousand other people too.’ ”
 

Promoting pleasure

While not an ob.gyn., discussing sexuality with patients has become a focus for Evelin Dacker, MD, a family physician in Salem, Ore. Dr. Dacker is certified in functional medicine, which takes a holistic and integrative approach. During her training she had a sudden realization: Sexuality had not been discussed at any point during her medical education.

“I recognized that this was a huge gap in how we deal with a person as a human,” Dr. Dacker explained. “Since sexuality plays a role in so many aspects of our humanness, not just having sex.”

Dr. Dacker believes in rethinking sexuality as a fundamental part of overall health, as vital as nutrition or blood pressure. Outside her medical practice, she teaches classes and workshops on sexual health and sex positivity for young adults and other physicians. She has also developed an educational framework for sexual health topics. Dr. Dacker said she frequently confronts the idea that sexuality is only about engaging with another person. She disagrees. Using food as a metaphor, she argues that just as the pleasure of eating something is purely for oneself, sexuality belongs to the individual.

Sexuality can also be a tool for pleasure, which Dr. Dacker believes plays an essential role in physical health. “Pleasure is a medicine,” Dr. Dacker said. “I actually prescribe self-pleasure practices to my patients, so they can start owning it within themselves. Make sure you get 7-8 hours of sleep, do some breathing exercises to help bring down your stress, and do self-pleasure so that you can integrate into your body better.”

She added that the impact of prioritizing one’s own desires, needs, and boundaries can transform how people view their sexuality. Her adult students frequently ask: “Why wasn’t I taught this as a teenager?”
 

Speaking of adult students – An older generation learns new tricks

While the teen cohort is usually the focus, the lack of sex education in previous decades – and the way sexual culture has evolved in that time – have an impact on older groups. Among U.S. adults aged 55 and older, the rate of STIs has more than doubled in the past 10 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While the majority of STI cases still occur among teenagers and young adults, the consistent increase in STIs among older persons is cause for concern among physicians and researchers.

The issue worries Shannon Dowler, MD, a family physician in western North Carolina and chief medical officer for North Carolina Medicaid. Dr. Dowler, who has practiced in an STI clinic throughout her career, began seeing more and more older adults with chlamydia, herpes, and other STIs. Dowler cites several factors behind the rise, including the growing retirement community population, the availability of pharmaceuticals for sexual dysfunction, and the “hook-up culture” that is active on dating apps, which research shows are regularly used by more than a third of adults older than 55.

Dr. Dowler also sees a lack of communication about sexual health between physicians and their older patients. “Older adults are more likely to be in relationship with their physician outside the exam room, especially if they’re in a small community,” Dr. Dowler said. “Sometimes they aren’t as comfortable sharing what their risks are. But we are guilty in medicine all the time of not asking. We assume someone’s older so they’re not having sex anymore. But, in fact, they are, and we’re not taking the time to say: ‘Let’s talk about your sex life. Are you at risk for anything? Are you having any difficulties with sex?’ We tend to avoid it as a health care culture.”

In contrast, Dr. Dowler said she talks about sexual health with anyone who will listen. She teaches classes in private schools and universities and for church youth groups and other physicians. She often finds that public schools are not interested, which she attributes to fear of her discussing things “outside the rule book.”

Dr. Dowler takes creative approaches. In 2017, she released a hip-hop video, “STD’s Never Get Old,” in which she raps about safe sex for older adults. Her video went viral, was mentioned by several news outlets, and received over 50,000 views on YouTube. Dr. Dowler’s latest project is a book, “Never Too Late: Your Guide to Safer Sex after 60,” which is scheduled for publication on Valentine’s Day, 2023.

“It’s sex ed for seniors,” she explained. “It’s that gym class that some people got – I won’t say everyone got – in high school. This is the version for older adults who didn’t get that. There are new infections now that didn’t exist when they had sex education, if they had sex education.”
 

A big subject requires a big mission

For others in the sex education field, physicians are allies in their fight against agendas designed to obstruct or erode sex education. Alison Macklin, director of policy and advocacy at SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change, formerly the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, sees this struggle playing out in school boards and state legislatures across the country. For every comprehensive sex education bill passed or school district victory, there is yet another blocked proposal or restrictive law somewhere else.

Ms. Macklin urged doctors to get more involved locally and to expand their knowledge of sexual health issues by reaching out to organizations such as Planned Parenthood and to be “hyper vigilant” in their own communities.

“Doctors are trusted. People really respect what they have to say,” Ms. Macklin said. “And this is an important time for them to speak up.”

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

An athletic coach stands in front of a packed gym full of high school students.
 

“Don’t have sex,” he instructs, “because you will get pregnant and die. Don’t have sex in the missionary position. Don’t have sex standing up. Just don’t do it, promise? Okay, everybody take some rubbers.”

Sad to say, this scene from the 2004 movie “Mean Girls” bears a striking resemblance to the actual sex education courses taught in schools across the United States today. In fact, things may have gotten measurably worse.

National data recently published by the Guttmacher Institute showed that adolescents were less likely to receive adequate sex education from 2015 to 2019 than they were in 1995. Only half of kids aged 15-19 received sex education that met minimum standards recommended by the Department of Health & Human Services, and fewer than half were given this information before having sex for the first time. With such a vast learning gap, it is no surprise that the United States has some of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections in the developed world.

Concerned and motivated by this need for sex education, physicians and other medical professionals are stepping in to fill the void, offering sexual health information through a range of methods to students of all ages (some a lot older than one may think). It is a calling that takes them outside their hospitals and exam rooms into workshops and through educational materials, video, and social media content created from scratch.

“The fact that we’re able to go in and provide factual, scientific, important information that can affect the trajectory of someone’s life is powerful,” said Julia Rossen, part of a contingent of med students at Brown University, Providence, R.I., who now teach sex ed as an elective.

Their goals are not just about protecting health. Many are also teaching about other topics commonly ignored in sex education classes, such as consent, pleasure, LGBTQ+ identities, and cultural competence. There is a mutually beneficial relationship, they say, between their sex education work and their medical practice.
 

Changing the status quo

A jumble of state laws govern how and when schools should offer sex education courses. Individual school districts often make the final decisions about their content, creating even more inconsistent standards. Only 29 states and the District of Columbia mandate sex education, and 13 of those do not require that it be medically accurate. Abstinence-only education, which has been shown to be ineffective, is exclusively taught in 16 states.

Without formal instruction, many young people must learn about sex from family members, who may be unwilling, or they may share knowledge between themselves, which is often incorrect, or navigate the limitless information and misinformation available on the internet.

The consequences of this were apparent to several medical students at Brown University in 2013. At the time, the rate of teenage pregnancy across Rhode Island was 1 in 100, but in the small city of Central Falls, it was 1 in 25. Aiming to improve this, the group created a comprehensive sex education program for a Central Falls middle school that was taught by medical student volunteers.

The Sex Ed by Brown Med program continues today. It consists of eight in-person sessions. Topics include anatomy, contraception, STIs, sexual decision-making, consent, sexual violence, and sexual and gender identity. Through this program, as well as other factors, the Central Falls teenage pregnancy rate declined to 1.6 in 100 from 2016 to 2020, according to the Rhode Island Department of Health.

“Historically, sexual education has been politicized,” said Ms. Rossen, one of the current program leaders. “It’s been at the discretion of a lot of different factors that aren’t under the control of the communities that are actually receiving the education.”

Among seventh graders, the teachers say they encounter different levels of maturity. But they feel that the kids are more receptive and open with younger adults who, like them, are still students. Some volunteers recall the flaws in their own sex education, particularly regarding topics such as consent and gender and sexual identity, and they believe middle school is the time to begin the sexual health conversation. “By the time you’re talking to college-age students, it’s pretty much too late,” said another group leader, Benjamin Stone.

Mr. Stone feels that practicing having these often-awkward discussions enhances their clinical skills as physicians. “Sex and sexual history are part of the comprehensive medical interview. People want to have these conversations, and they’re looking for someone to open the door. The kids are excited that we’re opening that door for them. And I think patients feel the same way.”
 

Conquering social media

Opening the door has been more like releasing a floodgate for Danielle Jones, MD, an ob.gyn. physician who is originally from Texas but who moved to New Zealand in 2021. Known on social media as “Mama Doctor Jones,” she has garnered more than 3 million followers across YouTube, TikTok, Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Dr. Jones produces short, friendly, entertaining videos on a range of reproductive health and sex education topics. They appeal to an adolescent audience hungry for a trustworthy voice on issues such as,: “5 ‘Strange’ Things Your Vagina Does That Are NORMAL” and “Condom Broke ... Now What?”

Dr. Jones uses her platform to debunk some of the misleading and inaccurate sexual health information being taught in classrooms, by other social media influencers, and that is found on the internet in general. Her no-nonsense-style videos call out such myths as being unable to pee with a tampon in, Plan B emergency contraception causing abortions, and COVID-19 vaccines damaging fertility.

“The way sex ed is done in the U.S. in most places is continuing the taboo by making it a one-time discussion or health class,” said Dr. Jones, “particularly if boys and girls are separated. That doesn’t further communication between people or foster an environment where it’s okay to discuss your body and puberty and changes in sexual health in general. And if you can’t talk about it in educational spaces, you’re certainly not going to be comfortable talking about that in a one-on-one situation with another 16-year-old.”

Taking on other taboos, Dr. Jones has been outspoken about abortion and the consequences of the recent Supreme Court decision, both as an ethical issue and a medical one that endangers lives. Raised in a deeply religious family, Dr. Jones said she was indoctrinated with antiabortion views, and it took time for her thinking to evolve “from a scientific and humanistic standpoint.” While working in a Texas private practice, Dr. Jones described being unable to mention abortion online because of fear of losing her patients and for her own safety.

Now free of those constraints, Dr. Jones feels that her videos can be important resources for teachers who may have little health training. And she is enthusiastic about the complementary relationship between her social media work and her clinical practice. “There are conversations I have all the time in the clinic where patients tell me: ‘Nobody’s ever really had this conversation in this way with me. Thank you for explaining that,’ ” said Dr. Jones. “And then I think: ‘Well, now I’ll have it with a hundred thousand other people too.’ ”
 

Promoting pleasure

While not an ob.gyn., discussing sexuality with patients has become a focus for Evelin Dacker, MD, a family physician in Salem, Ore. Dr. Dacker is certified in functional medicine, which takes a holistic and integrative approach. During her training she had a sudden realization: Sexuality had not been discussed at any point during her medical education.

“I recognized that this was a huge gap in how we deal with a person as a human,” Dr. Dacker explained. “Since sexuality plays a role in so many aspects of our humanness, not just having sex.”

Dr. Dacker believes in rethinking sexuality as a fundamental part of overall health, as vital as nutrition or blood pressure. Outside her medical practice, she teaches classes and workshops on sexual health and sex positivity for young adults and other physicians. She has also developed an educational framework for sexual health topics. Dr. Dacker said she frequently confronts the idea that sexuality is only about engaging with another person. She disagrees. Using food as a metaphor, she argues that just as the pleasure of eating something is purely for oneself, sexuality belongs to the individual.

Sexuality can also be a tool for pleasure, which Dr. Dacker believes plays an essential role in physical health. “Pleasure is a medicine,” Dr. Dacker said. “I actually prescribe self-pleasure practices to my patients, so they can start owning it within themselves. Make sure you get 7-8 hours of sleep, do some breathing exercises to help bring down your stress, and do self-pleasure so that you can integrate into your body better.”

She added that the impact of prioritizing one’s own desires, needs, and boundaries can transform how people view their sexuality. Her adult students frequently ask: “Why wasn’t I taught this as a teenager?”
 

Speaking of adult students – An older generation learns new tricks

While the teen cohort is usually the focus, the lack of sex education in previous decades – and the way sexual culture has evolved in that time – have an impact on older groups. Among U.S. adults aged 55 and older, the rate of STIs has more than doubled in the past 10 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While the majority of STI cases still occur among teenagers and young adults, the consistent increase in STIs among older persons is cause for concern among physicians and researchers.

The issue worries Shannon Dowler, MD, a family physician in western North Carolina and chief medical officer for North Carolina Medicaid. Dr. Dowler, who has practiced in an STI clinic throughout her career, began seeing more and more older adults with chlamydia, herpes, and other STIs. Dowler cites several factors behind the rise, including the growing retirement community population, the availability of pharmaceuticals for sexual dysfunction, and the “hook-up culture” that is active on dating apps, which research shows are regularly used by more than a third of adults older than 55.

Dr. Dowler also sees a lack of communication about sexual health between physicians and their older patients. “Older adults are more likely to be in relationship with their physician outside the exam room, especially if they’re in a small community,” Dr. Dowler said. “Sometimes they aren’t as comfortable sharing what their risks are. But we are guilty in medicine all the time of not asking. We assume someone’s older so they’re not having sex anymore. But, in fact, they are, and we’re not taking the time to say: ‘Let’s talk about your sex life. Are you at risk for anything? Are you having any difficulties with sex?’ We tend to avoid it as a health care culture.”

In contrast, Dr. Dowler said she talks about sexual health with anyone who will listen. She teaches classes in private schools and universities and for church youth groups and other physicians. She often finds that public schools are not interested, which she attributes to fear of her discussing things “outside the rule book.”

Dr. Dowler takes creative approaches. In 2017, she released a hip-hop video, “STD’s Never Get Old,” in which she raps about safe sex for older adults. Her video went viral, was mentioned by several news outlets, and received over 50,000 views on YouTube. Dr. Dowler’s latest project is a book, “Never Too Late: Your Guide to Safer Sex after 60,” which is scheduled for publication on Valentine’s Day, 2023.

“It’s sex ed for seniors,” she explained. “It’s that gym class that some people got – I won’t say everyone got – in high school. This is the version for older adults who didn’t get that. There are new infections now that didn’t exist when they had sex education, if they had sex education.”
 

A big subject requires a big mission

For others in the sex education field, physicians are allies in their fight against agendas designed to obstruct or erode sex education. Alison Macklin, director of policy and advocacy at SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change, formerly the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, sees this struggle playing out in school boards and state legislatures across the country. For every comprehensive sex education bill passed or school district victory, there is yet another blocked proposal or restrictive law somewhere else.

Ms. Macklin urged doctors to get more involved locally and to expand their knowledge of sexual health issues by reaching out to organizations such as Planned Parenthood and to be “hyper vigilant” in their own communities.

“Doctors are trusted. People really respect what they have to say,” Ms. Macklin said. “And this is an important time for them to speak up.”

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

Older age is associated with many health conditions that could potentially benefit from psychedelic-assisted therapy, yet very few older adults have been included in clinical trials of psychedelics, new research shows.

“Geriatric psychiatrists and others caring for older adults are interested in how much is known about psychedelic use in older adults,” study investigator C. Bree Johnston, MD, MPH, University of Arizona, Tucson, told this news organization.

University of Arizona

“A major concern is how safe psychedelic-assisted therapy is for patients with heart disease, hypertension, neurological disorders, and multimorbidity,” Dr. Johnston said.

The study is published online in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

‘Groundswell’ of research

The past few years have brought a “groundswell” of interest and promising research into the potential therapeutic benefit of psychedelic-assisted therapy for a variety of conditions affecting adults, the researchers noted.

They include psilocybin-assisted therapy for the distress associated with a terminal diagnosis, depression, and addiction, and MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD.

However, in most studies, psychedelic therapy has been tested in relatively young healthy adults, raising the question of how generalizable the study results are for the patients that most geropsychiatrists will be treating, the investigators noted.

They reviewed “the most important” research studies on psilocybin- and MDMA-assisted therapies published over the past 2 decades that are likely to be relevant for geriatric psychiatrists and other professionals caring for older adults.

The researchers point out that psychedelics and related compounds have shown efficacy for the treatment of a number of conditions that are common among older adults, including mood disorders, distress associated with a serious medical illness, PTSD, substance use problems, and prolonged grief.

Psychedelics also have properties that may provide for cognitive impairment and dementia and promote personal growth among healthy older adults.

Research has shown that psychedelics can be safely administered to healthy adults in controlled conditions.

However, both psilocybin and MDMA can increase blood pressure and heart rate, which could be a concern if used in older adults with cardiovascular disease, the investigators noted.

“Healthy older adults are likely to face similar risks when undergoing psychedelic-assisted therapy as healthy younger adults,” said Dr. Johnston.

“In carefully selected adults, those risks appear to be minor when psychedelics are administered in controlled conditions under the guidance of a skilled therapist,” she added.

Given the potential of psychedelic compounds to benefit older adults, the authors call for more research to establish the safety and efficacy among older adults, particularly those with multiple comorbidities.
 

Pressing knowledge gaps

The exclusion of older adults from clinical trials of novel treatments is “one of contemporary psychiatry’s more pressing problems – one that extends beyond psychedelics,” Ipsit V. Vahia, MD, associate chief of the division of geriatric psychiatry, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., who wasn’t involved in the review, told this news organization.

courtesy McLean Hospital

“Currently, there is little evidence that clinicians can lean on while considering the use of psychedelics in older adults,” Dr. Vahia said.

This paper highlights “the most pressing gaps in the evidence that bear addressing in order to develop more substantial best practices around the use of these drugs,” he added.

For example, little is known about appropriate dosing, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of psychedelics in older adults, Dr. Vahia said.

“Their risks, particularly cardiovascular risks, are barely studied, and almost nothing is known about how these drugs may impact those in their 80s or older, or those with serious medical comorbidities who use multiple medications,” Dr. Vahia said. “The majority of the existing literature has excluded older adults, and the extremely limited evidence that does exist has been collected in relatively healthy, and relatively young (aged below 75) persons.”

Dr. Vahia noted that, before psychedelics as a class can be considered viable treatment options for a broader group of older adults, “more research is needed, particularly to establish safety.”

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Johnston and Dr. Vahia have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Older age is associated with many health conditions that could potentially benefit from psychedelic-assisted therapy, yet very few older adults have been included in clinical trials of psychedelics, new research shows.

“Geriatric psychiatrists and others caring for older adults are interested in how much is known about psychedelic use in older adults,” study investigator C. Bree Johnston, MD, MPH, University of Arizona, Tucson, told this news organization.

University of Arizona

“A major concern is how safe psychedelic-assisted therapy is for patients with heart disease, hypertension, neurological disorders, and multimorbidity,” Dr. Johnston said.

The study is published online in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

‘Groundswell’ of research

The past few years have brought a “groundswell” of interest and promising research into the potential therapeutic benefit of psychedelic-assisted therapy for a variety of conditions affecting adults, the researchers noted.

They include psilocybin-assisted therapy for the distress associated with a terminal diagnosis, depression, and addiction, and MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD.

However, in most studies, psychedelic therapy has been tested in relatively young healthy adults, raising the question of how generalizable the study results are for the patients that most geropsychiatrists will be treating, the investigators noted.

They reviewed “the most important” research studies on psilocybin- and MDMA-assisted therapies published over the past 2 decades that are likely to be relevant for geriatric psychiatrists and other professionals caring for older adults.

The researchers point out that psychedelics and related compounds have shown efficacy for the treatment of a number of conditions that are common among older adults, including mood disorders, distress associated with a serious medical illness, PTSD, substance use problems, and prolonged grief.

Psychedelics also have properties that may provide for cognitive impairment and dementia and promote personal growth among healthy older adults.

Research has shown that psychedelics can be safely administered to healthy adults in controlled conditions.

However, both psilocybin and MDMA can increase blood pressure and heart rate, which could be a concern if used in older adults with cardiovascular disease, the investigators noted.

“Healthy older adults are likely to face similar risks when undergoing psychedelic-assisted therapy as healthy younger adults,” said Dr. Johnston.

“In carefully selected adults, those risks appear to be minor when psychedelics are administered in controlled conditions under the guidance of a skilled therapist,” she added.

Given the potential of psychedelic compounds to benefit older adults, the authors call for more research to establish the safety and efficacy among older adults, particularly those with multiple comorbidities.
 

Pressing knowledge gaps

The exclusion of older adults from clinical trials of novel treatments is “one of contemporary psychiatry’s more pressing problems – one that extends beyond psychedelics,” Ipsit V. Vahia, MD, associate chief of the division of geriatric psychiatry, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., who wasn’t involved in the review, told this news organization.

courtesy McLean Hospital

“Currently, there is little evidence that clinicians can lean on while considering the use of psychedelics in older adults,” Dr. Vahia said.

This paper highlights “the most pressing gaps in the evidence that bear addressing in order to develop more substantial best practices around the use of these drugs,” he added.

For example, little is known about appropriate dosing, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of psychedelics in older adults, Dr. Vahia said.

“Their risks, particularly cardiovascular risks, are barely studied, and almost nothing is known about how these drugs may impact those in their 80s or older, or those with serious medical comorbidities who use multiple medications,” Dr. Vahia said. “The majority of the existing literature has excluded older adults, and the extremely limited evidence that does exist has been collected in relatively healthy, and relatively young (aged below 75) persons.”

Dr. Vahia noted that, before psychedelics as a class can be considered viable treatment options for a broader group of older adults, “more research is needed, particularly to establish safety.”

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Johnston and Dr. Vahia have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Older age is associated with many health conditions that could potentially benefit from psychedelic-assisted therapy, yet very few older adults have been included in clinical trials of psychedelics, new research shows.

“Geriatric psychiatrists and others caring for older adults are interested in how much is known about psychedelic use in older adults,” study investigator C. Bree Johnston, MD, MPH, University of Arizona, Tucson, told this news organization.

University of Arizona

“A major concern is how safe psychedelic-assisted therapy is for patients with heart disease, hypertension, neurological disorders, and multimorbidity,” Dr. Johnston said.

The study is published online in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

‘Groundswell’ of research

The past few years have brought a “groundswell” of interest and promising research into the potential therapeutic benefit of psychedelic-assisted therapy for a variety of conditions affecting adults, the researchers noted.

They include psilocybin-assisted therapy for the distress associated with a terminal diagnosis, depression, and addiction, and MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD.

However, in most studies, psychedelic therapy has been tested in relatively young healthy adults, raising the question of how generalizable the study results are for the patients that most geropsychiatrists will be treating, the investigators noted.

They reviewed “the most important” research studies on psilocybin- and MDMA-assisted therapies published over the past 2 decades that are likely to be relevant for geriatric psychiatrists and other professionals caring for older adults.

The researchers point out that psychedelics and related compounds have shown efficacy for the treatment of a number of conditions that are common among older adults, including mood disorders, distress associated with a serious medical illness, PTSD, substance use problems, and prolonged grief.

Psychedelics also have properties that may provide for cognitive impairment and dementia and promote personal growth among healthy older adults.

Research has shown that psychedelics can be safely administered to healthy adults in controlled conditions.

However, both psilocybin and MDMA can increase blood pressure and heart rate, which could be a concern if used in older adults with cardiovascular disease, the investigators noted.

“Healthy older adults are likely to face similar risks when undergoing psychedelic-assisted therapy as healthy younger adults,” said Dr. Johnston.

“In carefully selected adults, those risks appear to be minor when psychedelics are administered in controlled conditions under the guidance of a skilled therapist,” she added.

Given the potential of psychedelic compounds to benefit older adults, the authors call for more research to establish the safety and efficacy among older adults, particularly those with multiple comorbidities.
 

Pressing knowledge gaps

The exclusion of older adults from clinical trials of novel treatments is “one of contemporary psychiatry’s more pressing problems – one that extends beyond psychedelics,” Ipsit V. Vahia, MD, associate chief of the division of geriatric psychiatry, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., who wasn’t involved in the review, told this news organization.

courtesy McLean Hospital

“Currently, there is little evidence that clinicians can lean on while considering the use of psychedelics in older adults,” Dr. Vahia said.

This paper highlights “the most pressing gaps in the evidence that bear addressing in order to develop more substantial best practices around the use of these drugs,” he added.

For example, little is known about appropriate dosing, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of psychedelics in older adults, Dr. Vahia said.

“Their risks, particularly cardiovascular risks, are barely studied, and almost nothing is known about how these drugs may impact those in their 80s or older, or those with serious medical comorbidities who use multiple medications,” Dr. Vahia said. “The majority of the existing literature has excluded older adults, and the extremely limited evidence that does exist has been collected in relatively healthy, and relatively young (aged below 75) persons.”

Dr. Vahia noted that, before psychedelics as a class can be considered viable treatment options for a broader group of older adults, “more research is needed, particularly to establish safety.”

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Johnston and Dr. Vahia have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

BARCELONA – Increased frailty of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) should have no bearing on whether those patients receive sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), according to results of a post hoc analysis of data from a pivotal trial.

Plus, a recently reported prespecified analysis of data from a different pivotal trial shows that the same rule applies to patients with HFpEF who receive treatment with dapagliflozin (Farxiga). A pair of earlier reports showed similar findings for dapagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

“There appears to be a greater reduction in the primary outcome and in hospitalizations for heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan with increasing frailty, and sacubitril/valsartan was safe and well tolerated regardless of frailty status” in post hoc analysis of data from the PARAGON-HF trial, Jawad H. Butt, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Analysis of the treatment effect by sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with HFpEF in PARAGON-HF showed that sacubitril/valsartan actually benefited patients more as their frailty increased when researchers applied frailty severity as a continuous variable. When they analyzed frailty’s effect by dividing the study cohort into three subgroups based on frailty severity – not frail, more frail, and most frail – the statistical analysis showed no significant heterogeneity of effect, although the point estimates for each subgroup showed by far the biggest benefit among the most frail patients. A safety analysis showed consistent safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan across all three frailty subgroups, Dr. Butt reported.

Simultaneously with his report at the congress the results appeared online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Don’t withhold sacubitril/valsartan because of frailty

“We should not withhold [sacubitril/valsartan] treatment in patients perceived to be frail,” Dr. Butt declared in an interview. “There are no safety concerns, and no efficacy concerns,” although he cautioned that sacubitril/valsartan is not indicated for all patients with HFpEF. “If you believe that sacubitril/valsartan is indicated for a patient with HFpEF, do not withhold it just because of frailty,” said Dr. Butt, a cardiologist at Copenhagen University Hospital.

Dr. Butt went a step further and stressed, “I don’t think we should measure frailty” when considering patients with heart failure for treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, or with dapagliflozin, which had shown safety and maintained efficacy in a prespecified analysis he recently reported for patients with HFpEF, and in a separate recent report on a post hoc analysis of dapagliflozin use in patients with HFrEF in the DAPA-HF trial.

A published report also showed no evidence for an interaction between frailty and efficacy for sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in the PARADIGM-HF pivotal trial, which enrolled people with HFrEF.

The issue of treatment safety and efficacy for patients considered frail is especially notable because “clinicians may be more reluctant to initiate new therapies due to doubt about the benefit of treatments in frail patients and apprehensions about predisposing them to potential new adverse effects,” said Dr. Butt.

“We should not defer these treatments on account of patient frailty,” said Maja Cikes, MD, a cardiologist at the University Hospital Center Zagreb, Croatia. The report by Dr. Butt “shows the safety” of using sacubitril/valsartan in most patients with HFpEF regardless of their frailty status, Dr. Cikes added in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

‘Benefits without increasing the risk of frailty’

The data reported by Dr. Butt “suggest that although frail older persons with HFpEF are at greater risk for adverse outcomes overall, the prescription of sacubitril/valsartan seems to confer benefits without increasing the risk of frailty-related adverse events,” George A. Heckman, MD, a geriatrician at the University of Waterloo (Canada), and Kenneth Rockwood, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Dalhousie University in Halifax, N.S., wrote in an editorial that accompanied the published version of Dr. Butt’s report.

The PARADIGM-HF trial enrolled 4,822 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 45% at 848 centers in 43 countries during 2014-2016, and followed them for a median of 35 months, with a primary endpoint of the combined rate of hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of the primary endpoint by 13% compared with the control patients who received valsartan, a difference that missed narrowly missed significance (P = .06).

Despite this statistically neutral result, the Food and Drug Administration subsequently, based on these results, modified the indication for using sacubitril/valsartan from exclusively patients with HFrEF to patients with higher left ventricular ejection fractions, including at least some patients diagnosed with HFpEF.

To run the frailty analysis, Dr. Butt and his associates devised a 41-item frailty index, which identified 45% of the study cohort as not frail, 44% as more frail, and 11% as most frail. Their analyses also showed that frailty severity had no significant relationship to the effect of treatment with sacubitril valsartan on improving quality of life, or on improving functional status. Frailty also played no apparent role in the impact of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on treatment discontinuations or adverse effects.

PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF were sponsored by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Butt has been an adviser to Bayer. Dr. Cikes has received travel support or honoraria from Novartis as well as from Amicus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, GE Healthcare, Krka, LivaNova, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Teva, and research support or contracts from Novartis as well as from Abbott, Corvia, and Pfizer. Dr. Heckman had no disclosures. Dr. Rockwood is a cofounder of Ardea Outcomes, an adviser to Nutricia, and he holds a copyright through Dalhousie University on the Clinical Frailty Scale (which allows free use for educational, research, and not-for-profit health care purposes).

BARCELONA – Increased frailty of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) should have no bearing on whether those patients receive sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), according to results of a post hoc analysis of data from a pivotal trial.

Plus, a recently reported prespecified analysis of data from a different pivotal trial shows that the same rule applies to patients with HFpEF who receive treatment with dapagliflozin (Farxiga). A pair of earlier reports showed similar findings for dapagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

“There appears to be a greater reduction in the primary outcome and in hospitalizations for heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan with increasing frailty, and sacubitril/valsartan was safe and well tolerated regardless of frailty status” in post hoc analysis of data from the PARAGON-HF trial, Jawad H. Butt, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Analysis of the treatment effect by sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with HFpEF in PARAGON-HF showed that sacubitril/valsartan actually benefited patients more as their frailty increased when researchers applied frailty severity as a continuous variable. When they analyzed frailty’s effect by dividing the study cohort into three subgroups based on frailty severity – not frail, more frail, and most frail – the statistical analysis showed no significant heterogeneity of effect, although the point estimates for each subgroup showed by far the biggest benefit among the most frail patients. A safety analysis showed consistent safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan across all three frailty subgroups, Dr. Butt reported.

Simultaneously with his report at the congress the results appeared online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Don’t withhold sacubitril/valsartan because of frailty

“We should not withhold [sacubitril/valsartan] treatment in patients perceived to be frail,” Dr. Butt declared in an interview. “There are no safety concerns, and no efficacy concerns,” although he cautioned that sacubitril/valsartan is not indicated for all patients with HFpEF. “If you believe that sacubitril/valsartan is indicated for a patient with HFpEF, do not withhold it just because of frailty,” said Dr. Butt, a cardiologist at Copenhagen University Hospital.

Dr. Butt went a step further and stressed, “I don’t think we should measure frailty” when considering patients with heart failure for treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, or with dapagliflozin, which had shown safety and maintained efficacy in a prespecified analysis he recently reported for patients with HFpEF, and in a separate recent report on a post hoc analysis of dapagliflozin use in patients with HFrEF in the DAPA-HF trial.

A published report also showed no evidence for an interaction between frailty and efficacy for sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in the PARADIGM-HF pivotal trial, which enrolled people with HFrEF.

The issue of treatment safety and efficacy for patients considered frail is especially notable because “clinicians may be more reluctant to initiate new therapies due to doubt about the benefit of treatments in frail patients and apprehensions about predisposing them to potential new adverse effects,” said Dr. Butt.

“We should not defer these treatments on account of patient frailty,” said Maja Cikes, MD, a cardiologist at the University Hospital Center Zagreb, Croatia. The report by Dr. Butt “shows the safety” of using sacubitril/valsartan in most patients with HFpEF regardless of their frailty status, Dr. Cikes added in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

‘Benefits without increasing the risk of frailty’

The data reported by Dr. Butt “suggest that although frail older persons with HFpEF are at greater risk for adverse outcomes overall, the prescription of sacubitril/valsartan seems to confer benefits without increasing the risk of frailty-related adverse events,” George A. Heckman, MD, a geriatrician at the University of Waterloo (Canada), and Kenneth Rockwood, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Dalhousie University in Halifax, N.S., wrote in an editorial that accompanied the published version of Dr. Butt’s report.

The PARADIGM-HF trial enrolled 4,822 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 45% at 848 centers in 43 countries during 2014-2016, and followed them for a median of 35 months, with a primary endpoint of the combined rate of hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of the primary endpoint by 13% compared with the control patients who received valsartan, a difference that missed narrowly missed significance (P = .06).

Despite this statistically neutral result, the Food and Drug Administration subsequently, based on these results, modified the indication for using sacubitril/valsartan from exclusively patients with HFrEF to patients with higher left ventricular ejection fractions, including at least some patients diagnosed with HFpEF.

To run the frailty analysis, Dr. Butt and his associates devised a 41-item frailty index, which identified 45% of the study cohort as not frail, 44% as more frail, and 11% as most frail. Their analyses also showed that frailty severity had no significant relationship to the effect of treatment with sacubitril valsartan on improving quality of life, or on improving functional status. Frailty also played no apparent role in the impact of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on treatment discontinuations or adverse effects.

PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF were sponsored by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Butt has been an adviser to Bayer. Dr. Cikes has received travel support or honoraria from Novartis as well as from Amicus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, GE Healthcare, Krka, LivaNova, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Teva, and research support or contracts from Novartis as well as from Abbott, Corvia, and Pfizer. Dr. Heckman had no disclosures. Dr. Rockwood is a cofounder of Ardea Outcomes, an adviser to Nutricia, and he holds a copyright through Dalhousie University on the Clinical Frailty Scale (which allows free use for educational, research, and not-for-profit health care purposes).

BARCELONA – Increased frailty of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) should have no bearing on whether those patients receive sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), according to results of a post hoc analysis of data from a pivotal trial.

Plus, a recently reported prespecified analysis of data from a different pivotal trial shows that the same rule applies to patients with HFpEF who receive treatment with dapagliflozin (Farxiga). A pair of earlier reports showed similar findings for dapagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

“There appears to be a greater reduction in the primary outcome and in hospitalizations for heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan with increasing frailty, and sacubitril/valsartan was safe and well tolerated regardless of frailty status” in post hoc analysis of data from the PARAGON-HF trial, Jawad H. Butt, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Analysis of the treatment effect by sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with HFpEF in PARAGON-HF showed that sacubitril/valsartan actually benefited patients more as their frailty increased when researchers applied frailty severity as a continuous variable. When they analyzed frailty’s effect by dividing the study cohort into three subgroups based on frailty severity – not frail, more frail, and most frail – the statistical analysis showed no significant heterogeneity of effect, although the point estimates for each subgroup showed by far the biggest benefit among the most frail patients. A safety analysis showed consistent safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan across all three frailty subgroups, Dr. Butt reported.

Simultaneously with his report at the congress the results appeared online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Don’t withhold sacubitril/valsartan because of frailty

“We should not withhold [sacubitril/valsartan] treatment in patients perceived to be frail,” Dr. Butt declared in an interview. “There are no safety concerns, and no efficacy concerns,” although he cautioned that sacubitril/valsartan is not indicated for all patients with HFpEF. “If you believe that sacubitril/valsartan is indicated for a patient with HFpEF, do not withhold it just because of frailty,” said Dr. Butt, a cardiologist at Copenhagen University Hospital.

Dr. Butt went a step further and stressed, “I don’t think we should measure frailty” when considering patients with heart failure for treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, or with dapagliflozin, which had shown safety and maintained efficacy in a prespecified analysis he recently reported for patients with HFpEF, and in a separate recent report on a post hoc analysis of dapagliflozin use in patients with HFrEF in the DAPA-HF trial.

A published report also showed no evidence for an interaction between frailty and efficacy for sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in the PARADIGM-HF pivotal trial, which enrolled people with HFrEF.

The issue of treatment safety and efficacy for patients considered frail is especially notable because “clinicians may be more reluctant to initiate new therapies due to doubt about the benefit of treatments in frail patients and apprehensions about predisposing them to potential new adverse effects,” said Dr. Butt.

“We should not defer these treatments on account of patient frailty,” said Maja Cikes, MD, a cardiologist at the University Hospital Center Zagreb, Croatia. The report by Dr. Butt “shows the safety” of using sacubitril/valsartan in most patients with HFpEF regardless of their frailty status, Dr. Cikes added in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

‘Benefits without increasing the risk of frailty’

The data reported by Dr. Butt “suggest that although frail older persons with HFpEF are at greater risk for adverse outcomes overall, the prescription of sacubitril/valsartan seems to confer benefits without increasing the risk of frailty-related adverse events,” George A. Heckman, MD, a geriatrician at the University of Waterloo (Canada), and Kenneth Rockwood, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Dalhousie University in Halifax, N.S., wrote in an editorial that accompanied the published version of Dr. Butt’s report.

The PARADIGM-HF trial enrolled 4,822 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 45% at 848 centers in 43 countries during 2014-2016, and followed them for a median of 35 months, with a primary endpoint of the combined rate of hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of the primary endpoint by 13% compared with the control patients who received valsartan, a difference that missed narrowly missed significance (P = .06).

Despite this statistically neutral result, the Food and Drug Administration subsequently, based on these results, modified the indication for using sacubitril/valsartan from exclusively patients with HFrEF to patients with higher left ventricular ejection fractions, including at least some patients diagnosed with HFpEF.

To run the frailty analysis, Dr. Butt and his associates devised a 41-item frailty index, which identified 45% of the study cohort as not frail, 44% as more frail, and 11% as most frail. Their analyses also showed that frailty severity had no significant relationship to the effect of treatment with sacubitril valsartan on improving quality of life, or on improving functional status. Frailty also played no apparent role in the impact of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on treatment discontinuations or adverse effects.

PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF were sponsored by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Butt has been an adviser to Bayer. Dr. Cikes has received travel support or honoraria from Novartis as well as from Amicus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, GE Healthcare, Krka, LivaNova, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Teva, and research support or contracts from Novartis as well as from Abbott, Corvia, and Pfizer. Dr. Heckman had no disclosures. Dr. Rockwood is a cofounder of Ardea Outcomes, an adviser to Nutricia, and he holds a copyright through Dalhousie University on the Clinical Frailty Scale (which allows free use for educational, research, and not-for-profit health care purposes).

Following an online yoga program improves physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis, according to the results of a new randomized control trial.

Although pain did not significantly improve in the yoga group, participants only completed about two-thirds of the recommended sessions, suggesting that more benefit may be possible with greater adherence, wrote lead author Kim L. Bennell, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, and colleagues in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“To date, an online yoga program specifically for people with knee osteoarthritis has not been investigated,” the investigators said. “The need for such evidence-based packaged online exercise programs is highlighted in the 2020 U.S. National Public Health Agenda for Osteoarthritis.”
 

Methods and results

The trial involved 212 adults aged 45 years or older with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. All patients had access to online educational materials about managing osteoarthritis.

Half of the participants were randomized into the 12-week online yoga program. This self-directed, unsupervised course consisted of 12 prerecorded 30-minute instructional yoga sessions, each with a unique sequence of poses to be completed three times in one week before moving on to the next class the following week. After 12 weeks, these participants could choose to continue doing yoga via the online program for 12 additional weeks, if desired.

The primary outcomes were knee pain and physical function, gauged by a 10-point numerical rating scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), respectively. Adherence was defined as completion of at least 2 yoga sessions within the preceding week.

At the 12-week mark, the yoga group did not show any significant improvement in knee pain (–0.6; 95% confidence interval, –1.2 to 0.1), but they did achieve a mean 4-point reduction in WOMAC, suggesting significant improvement in knee function (­–4.0; 95% CI, –6.8 to –1.3). Of note, however, this improvement was not enough to meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference. At 24 weeks, the yoga group no longer showed significant improvement in knee function versus baseline.

“I don’t think a longer program would necessarily reduce knee pain, as benefits from a whole range of different types of exercise for knee osteoarthritis generally can show benefits within 8 weeks,” Dr. Bennell said in an interview.

Still, she noted that the average outcome in the trial may not represent what is possible if a patient commits to a regular yoga routine.

“I think it relates more to adherence [than duration], and I think benefits for knee pain would have been seen if a greater number of people had fully adhered to the program three times a week,” she said.

At 12 weeks, 68.8% of those in the yoga group were adherent, while just 28.4% were still adherent at week 24 after the optional extension period.

“As this was a self-directed program, adherence might be expected to be less than that of a supervised program,” Dr. Bennell noted.

Referring to unpublished data, Dr. Bennell said a sensitivity analysis showed that participants in the yoga group who completed yoga at least twice a week did show greater improvements in function and pain than those who did yoga less than twice per week.

“So it does suggest that adherence is important, as we might expect,” she said.
 

Another tool in the OA toolbox

Nick Trasolini, MD, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., described the benefits in the trial as “modest” and noted that the improvement in function did not meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference.

“Nevertheless,” he said in a written comment, “the [yoga] program was safe and associated with high participant satisfaction [mean satisfaction, 8 out of 10]. While this may not be the ‘silver bullet,’ it is another tool that we can offer to sufficiently motivated patients seeking non-operative solutions for knee osteoarthritis.”

Unfortunately, these tools remain “fraught with challenges,” Dr. Trasolini added.

“While multiple injection options are available (including corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid viscosupplementation, and biologic injections), the benefits of these injections can be short-lived,” he said. “This is frustrating to patients and physicians alike. Physical therapy is beneficial for knee osteoarthritis when deconditioning has led to decreased knee, hip, and core stability. However, physical therapy can be time consuming, painful, and cost prohibitive.”

In the present study, participants in the yoga group were somewhat willing (mean willingness, 5 out of 10) to pay for their 12-week yoga program. They reported that they would pay approximately $80 U.S. dollars for chance to do it all again.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council Program and the Centres of Research Excellence. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Pfizer, Lilly, TLCBio, and others. Dr. Trasolini disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Following an online yoga program improves physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis, according to the results of a new randomized control trial.

Although pain did not significantly improve in the yoga group, participants only completed about two-thirds of the recommended sessions, suggesting that more benefit may be possible with greater adherence, wrote lead author Kim L. Bennell, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, and colleagues in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“To date, an online yoga program specifically for people with knee osteoarthritis has not been investigated,” the investigators said. “The need for such evidence-based packaged online exercise programs is highlighted in the 2020 U.S. National Public Health Agenda for Osteoarthritis.”
 

Methods and results

The trial involved 212 adults aged 45 years or older with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. All patients had access to online educational materials about managing osteoarthritis.

Half of the participants were randomized into the 12-week online yoga program. This self-directed, unsupervised course consisted of 12 prerecorded 30-minute instructional yoga sessions, each with a unique sequence of poses to be completed three times in one week before moving on to the next class the following week. After 12 weeks, these participants could choose to continue doing yoga via the online program for 12 additional weeks, if desired.

The primary outcomes were knee pain and physical function, gauged by a 10-point numerical rating scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), respectively. Adherence was defined as completion of at least 2 yoga sessions within the preceding week.

At the 12-week mark, the yoga group did not show any significant improvement in knee pain (–0.6; 95% confidence interval, –1.2 to 0.1), but they did achieve a mean 4-point reduction in WOMAC, suggesting significant improvement in knee function (­–4.0; 95% CI, –6.8 to –1.3). Of note, however, this improvement was not enough to meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference. At 24 weeks, the yoga group no longer showed significant improvement in knee function versus baseline.

“I don’t think a longer program would necessarily reduce knee pain, as benefits from a whole range of different types of exercise for knee osteoarthritis generally can show benefits within 8 weeks,” Dr. Bennell said in an interview.

Still, she noted that the average outcome in the trial may not represent what is possible if a patient commits to a regular yoga routine.

“I think it relates more to adherence [than duration], and I think benefits for knee pain would have been seen if a greater number of people had fully adhered to the program three times a week,” she said.

At 12 weeks, 68.8% of those in the yoga group were adherent, while just 28.4% were still adherent at week 24 after the optional extension period.

“As this was a self-directed program, adherence might be expected to be less than that of a supervised program,” Dr. Bennell noted.

Referring to unpublished data, Dr. Bennell said a sensitivity analysis showed that participants in the yoga group who completed yoga at least twice a week did show greater improvements in function and pain than those who did yoga less than twice per week.

“So it does suggest that adherence is important, as we might expect,” she said.
 

Another tool in the OA toolbox

Nick Trasolini, MD, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., described the benefits in the trial as “modest” and noted that the improvement in function did not meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference.

“Nevertheless,” he said in a written comment, “the [yoga] program was safe and associated with high participant satisfaction [mean satisfaction, 8 out of 10]. While this may not be the ‘silver bullet,’ it is another tool that we can offer to sufficiently motivated patients seeking non-operative solutions for knee osteoarthritis.”

Unfortunately, these tools remain “fraught with challenges,” Dr. Trasolini added.

“While multiple injection options are available (including corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid viscosupplementation, and biologic injections), the benefits of these injections can be short-lived,” he said. “This is frustrating to patients and physicians alike. Physical therapy is beneficial for knee osteoarthritis when deconditioning has led to decreased knee, hip, and core stability. However, physical therapy can be time consuming, painful, and cost prohibitive.”

In the present study, participants in the yoga group were somewhat willing (mean willingness, 5 out of 10) to pay for their 12-week yoga program. They reported that they would pay approximately $80 U.S. dollars for chance to do it all again.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council Program and the Centres of Research Excellence. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Pfizer, Lilly, TLCBio, and others. Dr. Trasolini disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Following an online yoga program improves physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis, according to the results of a new randomized control trial.

Although pain did not significantly improve in the yoga group, participants only completed about two-thirds of the recommended sessions, suggesting that more benefit may be possible with greater adherence, wrote lead author Kim L. Bennell, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, and colleagues in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“To date, an online yoga program specifically for people with knee osteoarthritis has not been investigated,” the investigators said. “The need for such evidence-based packaged online exercise programs is highlighted in the 2020 U.S. National Public Health Agenda for Osteoarthritis.”
 

Methods and results

The trial involved 212 adults aged 45 years or older with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. All patients had access to online educational materials about managing osteoarthritis.

Half of the participants were randomized into the 12-week online yoga program. This self-directed, unsupervised course consisted of 12 prerecorded 30-minute instructional yoga sessions, each with a unique sequence of poses to be completed three times in one week before moving on to the next class the following week. After 12 weeks, these participants could choose to continue doing yoga via the online program for 12 additional weeks, if desired.

The primary outcomes were knee pain and physical function, gauged by a 10-point numerical rating scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), respectively. Adherence was defined as completion of at least 2 yoga sessions within the preceding week.

At the 12-week mark, the yoga group did not show any significant improvement in knee pain (–0.6; 95% confidence interval, –1.2 to 0.1), but they did achieve a mean 4-point reduction in WOMAC, suggesting significant improvement in knee function (­–4.0; 95% CI, –6.8 to –1.3). Of note, however, this improvement was not enough to meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference. At 24 weeks, the yoga group no longer showed significant improvement in knee function versus baseline.

“I don’t think a longer program would necessarily reduce knee pain, as benefits from a whole range of different types of exercise for knee osteoarthritis generally can show benefits within 8 weeks,” Dr. Bennell said in an interview.

Still, she noted that the average outcome in the trial may not represent what is possible if a patient commits to a regular yoga routine.

“I think it relates more to adherence [than duration], and I think benefits for knee pain would have been seen if a greater number of people had fully adhered to the program three times a week,” she said.

At 12 weeks, 68.8% of those in the yoga group were adherent, while just 28.4% were still adherent at week 24 after the optional extension period.

“As this was a self-directed program, adherence might be expected to be less than that of a supervised program,” Dr. Bennell noted.

Referring to unpublished data, Dr. Bennell said a sensitivity analysis showed that participants in the yoga group who completed yoga at least twice a week did show greater improvements in function and pain than those who did yoga less than twice per week.

“So it does suggest that adherence is important, as we might expect,” she said.
 

Another tool in the OA toolbox

Nick Trasolini, MD, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., described the benefits in the trial as “modest” and noted that the improvement in function did not meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference.

“Nevertheless,” he said in a written comment, “the [yoga] program was safe and associated with high participant satisfaction [mean satisfaction, 8 out of 10]. While this may not be the ‘silver bullet,’ it is another tool that we can offer to sufficiently motivated patients seeking non-operative solutions for knee osteoarthritis.”

Unfortunately, these tools remain “fraught with challenges,” Dr. Trasolini added.

“While multiple injection options are available (including corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid viscosupplementation, and biologic injections), the benefits of these injections can be short-lived,” he said. “This is frustrating to patients and physicians alike. Physical therapy is beneficial for knee osteoarthritis when deconditioning has led to decreased knee, hip, and core stability. However, physical therapy can be time consuming, painful, and cost prohibitive.”

In the present study, participants in the yoga group were somewhat willing (mean willingness, 5 out of 10) to pay for their 12-week yoga program. They reported that they would pay approximately $80 U.S. dollars for chance to do it all again.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council Program and the Centres of Research Excellence. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Pfizer, Lilly, TLCBio, and others. Dr. Trasolini disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Just over 51% of older hypertensive adults regularly check their own blood pressure, compared with 48% of those with blood pressure–related health conditions (BPHCs), based on a 2021 survey of individuals aged 50-80 years.

“Guidelines recommend that patients use self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SBPM) outside the clinic to diagnose and manage hypertension,” but just 61% of respondents with a BPHC and 68% of those with hypertension said that they had received such a recommendation from a physician, nurse, or other health care professional, Melanie V. Springer, MD, and associates said in JAMA Network Open.

The prevalence of regular monitoring among those with hypertension, 51.2%, does, however, compare favorably with an earlier study showing that 43% of adults aged 18 and older regularly monitored their BP in 2005 and 2008, “which is perhaps associated with our sample’s older age,” said Dr. Springer and associates of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The current study, they noted, is the first to report “SBPM prevalence in adults ages 50 to 80 years with hypertension or BPHCs, who have a higher risk of adverse outcomes from uncontrolled BP than younger adults.” The analysis is based on data from the National Poll on Healthy Aging, conducted by the University of Michigan in January 2021 and completed by 2,023 individuals.

The frequency of home monitoring varied among adults with BPHCs, as just under 15% reported daily checks and the largest proportion, about 28%, used their device one to three times per month. The results of home monitoring were shared with health care professionals by 50.2% of respondents with a BPHC and by 51.5% of those with hypertension, they said in the research letter.

Home monitoring’s less-than-universal recommendation by providers and use by patients “suggest that protocols should be developed to educate patients about the importance of SBPM and sharing readings with clinicians and the frequency that SBPM should be performed,” Dr. Springer and associates wrote.

The study was funded by AARP, Michigan Medicine, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. One investigator has received consulting fees or honoraria from SeeChange Health, HealthMine, the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, AbilTo, Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute, American Diabetes Association, Donaghue Foundation, and Luxembourg National Research Fund.

Just over 51% of older hypertensive adults regularly check their own blood pressure, compared with 48% of those with blood pressure–related health conditions (BPHCs), based on a 2021 survey of individuals aged 50-80 years.

“Guidelines recommend that patients use self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SBPM) outside the clinic to diagnose and manage hypertension,” but just 61% of respondents with a BPHC and 68% of those with hypertension said that they had received such a recommendation from a physician, nurse, or other health care professional, Melanie V. Springer, MD, and associates said in JAMA Network Open.

The prevalence of regular monitoring among those with hypertension, 51.2%, does, however, compare favorably with an earlier study showing that 43% of adults aged 18 and older regularly monitored their BP in 2005 and 2008, “which is perhaps associated with our sample’s older age,” said Dr. Springer and associates of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The current study, they noted, is the first to report “SBPM prevalence in adults ages 50 to 80 years with hypertension or BPHCs, who have a higher risk of adverse outcomes from uncontrolled BP than younger adults.” The analysis is based on data from the National Poll on Healthy Aging, conducted by the University of Michigan in January 2021 and completed by 2,023 individuals.

The frequency of home monitoring varied among adults with BPHCs, as just under 15% reported daily checks and the largest proportion, about 28%, used their device one to three times per month. The results of home monitoring were shared with health care professionals by 50.2% of respondents with a BPHC and by 51.5% of those with hypertension, they said in the research letter.

Home monitoring’s less-than-universal recommendation by providers and use by patients “suggest that protocols should be developed to educate patients about the importance of SBPM and sharing readings with clinicians and the frequency that SBPM should be performed,” Dr. Springer and associates wrote.

The study was funded by AARP, Michigan Medicine, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. One investigator has received consulting fees or honoraria from SeeChange Health, HealthMine, the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, AbilTo, Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute, American Diabetes Association, Donaghue Foundation, and Luxembourg National Research Fund.

Just over 51% of older hypertensive adults regularly check their own blood pressure, compared with 48% of those with blood pressure–related health conditions (BPHCs), based on a 2021 survey of individuals aged 50-80 years.

“Guidelines recommend that patients use self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SBPM) outside the clinic to diagnose and manage hypertension,” but just 61% of respondents with a BPHC and 68% of those with hypertension said that they had received such a recommendation from a physician, nurse, or other health care professional, Melanie V. Springer, MD, and associates said in JAMA Network Open.

The prevalence of regular monitoring among those with hypertension, 51.2%, does, however, compare favorably with an earlier study showing that 43% of adults aged 18 and older regularly monitored their BP in 2005 and 2008, “which is perhaps associated with our sample’s older age,” said Dr. Springer and associates of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The current study, they noted, is the first to report “SBPM prevalence in adults ages 50 to 80 years with hypertension or BPHCs, who have a higher risk of adverse outcomes from uncontrolled BP than younger adults.” The analysis is based on data from the National Poll on Healthy Aging, conducted by the University of Michigan in January 2021 and completed by 2,023 individuals.

The frequency of home monitoring varied among adults with BPHCs, as just under 15% reported daily checks and the largest proportion, about 28%, used their device one to three times per month. The results of home monitoring were shared with health care professionals by 50.2% of respondents with a BPHC and by 51.5% of those with hypertension, they said in the research letter.

Home monitoring’s less-than-universal recommendation by providers and use by patients “suggest that protocols should be developed to educate patients about the importance of SBPM and sharing readings with clinicians and the frequency that SBPM should be performed,” Dr. Springer and associates wrote.

The study was funded by AARP, Michigan Medicine, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. One investigator has received consulting fees or honoraria from SeeChange Health, HealthMine, the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, AbilTo, Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute, American Diabetes Association, Donaghue Foundation, and Luxembourg National Research Fund.

From the T1D Exchange, Boston, MA (Ann Mungmode, Nicole Rioles, Jesse Cases, Dr. Ebekozien); The Leona M. and Harry B. Hemsley Charitable Trust, New York, NY (Laurel Koester); and the University of Mississippi School of Population Health, Jackson, MS (Dr. Ebekozien).

Abstract

There have been remarkable innovations in diabetes management since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, but these groundbreaking innovations are drawing limited focus as the field focuses on the adverse impact of the pandemic on patients with diabetes. This article reviews select population health innovations in diabetes management that have become available over the past 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative, a learning health network that focuses on improving care and outcomes for individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Such innovations include expanded telemedicine access, collection of real-world data, machine learning and artificial intelligence, and new diabetes medications and devices. In addition, multiple innovative studies have been undertaken to explore contributors to health inequities in diabetes, and advocacy efforts for specific populations have been successful. Looking to the future, work is required to explore additional health equity successes that do not further exacerbate inequities and to look for additional innovative ways to engage people with T1D in their health care through conversations on social determinants of health and societal structures.

Keywords: type 1 diabetes, learning health network, continuous glucose monitoring, health equity

One in 10 people in the United States has diabetes.¹ Diabetes is the nation’s second leading cause of death, costing the US health system more than $300 billion annually.² The COVID-19 pandemic presented additional health burdens for people living with diabetes. For example, preexisting diabetes was identified as a risk factor for COVID-19–associated morbidity and mortality.^3,4 Over the past 2 years, there have been remarkable innovations in diabetes management, including stem cell therapy and new medication options. Additionally, improved technology solutions have aided in diabetes management through continuous glucose monitors (CGM), smart insulin pens, advanced hybrid closed-loop systems, and continuous subcutaneous insulin injections.^5,6 Unfortunately, these groundbreaking innovations are drawing limited focus, as the field is rightfully focused on the adverse impact of the pandemic on patients with diabetes.

Learning health networks like the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative (T1DX-QI) have implemented some of these innovative solutions to improve care for people with diabetes.⁷ T1DX-QI has more than 50 data-sharing endocrinology centers that care for over 75,000 people with diabetes across the United States (Figure 1). Centers participating in the T1DX-QI use quality improvement (QI) and implementation science methods to quickly translate research into evidence-based clinical practice. T1DX-QI leads diabetes population health and health system research and supports widespread transferability across health care organizations through regular collaborative calls, conferences, and case study documentation.⁸

In this review, we summarize impactful population health innovations in diabetes management that have become available over the past 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of T1DX-QI (see Figure 2 for relevant definitions). This review is limited in scope and is not meant to be an exhaustive list of innovations. The review also reflects significant changes from the perspective of academic diabetes centers, which may not apply to rural or primary care diabetes practices.

 

 

Methods

The first (A.M.), second (H.H.), and senior (O.E.) authors conducted a scoping review of published literature using terms related to diabetes, population health, and innovation on PubMed Central and Google Scholar for the period March 2020 to June 2022. To complement the review, A.M. and O.E. also reviewed abstracts from presentations at major international diabetes conferences, including the American Diabetes Association (ADA), the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD), the T1DX-QI Learning Session Conference, and the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) 2020 to 2022 conferences.^9-14 The authors also searched FDA.gov and ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant insights. A.M. and O.E. sorted the reviewed literature into major themes (Figure 3) from the population health improvement perspective of the T1DX-QI.

Population Health Innovations in Diabetes Management

Expansion of Telemedicine Access

Telemedicine is cost-effective for patients with diabetes,¹⁵ including those with complex cases.¹⁶ Before the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine and virtual care were rare in diabetes management. However, the pandemic offered a new opportunity to expand the practice of telemedicine in diabetes management. A study from the T1DX-QI showed that telemedicine visits grew from comprising <1% of visits pre-pandemic (December 2019) to 95.2% during the pandemic (August 2020).¹⁷ Additional studies, like those conducted by Phillip et al,¹⁸ confirmed the noninferiority of telemedicine practice for patients with diabetes.Telemedicine was also found to be an effective strategy to educate patients on the use of diabetes technologies.¹⁹

Real-World Data and Disease Surveillance

As the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated outcomes for people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), a need arose to understand the immediate effects of the pandemic on people with T1D through real-world data and disease surveillance. In April 2020, the T1DX-QI initiated a multicenter surveillance study to collect data and analyze the impact of COVID-19 on people with T1D. The existing health collaborative served as a springboard for robust surveillance study, documenting numerous works on the effects of COVID-19.^3,4,20-28 Other investigators also embraced the power of real-world surveillance and real-world data.^29,30

Big Data, Machine Learning, and Artificial Intelligence

The past 2 years have seen a shift toward embracing the incredible opportunity to tap the large volume of data generated from routine care for practical insights.³¹ In particular, researchers have demonstrated the widespread application of machine learning and artificial intelligence to improve diabetes management.³² The T1DX-QI also harnessed the growing power of big data by expanding the functionality of innovative benchmarking software. The T1DX QI Portal uses electronic medical record data of diabetes patients for clinic-to-clinic benchmarking and data analysis, using business intelligence solutions.³³

Health Equity

While inequities across various health outcomes have been well documented for years,³⁴ the COVID-19 pandemic further exaggerated racial/ethnic health inequities in T1D.^23,35 In response, several organizations have outlined specific strategies to address these health inequities. Emboldened by the pandemic, the T1DX-QI announced a multipronged approach to address health inequities among patients with T1D through the Health Equity Advancement Lab (HEAL).³⁶ One of HEAL’s main components is using real-world data to champion population-level insights and demonstrate progress in QI efforts.

Multiple innovative studies have been undertaken to explore contributors to health inequities in diabetes, and these studies are expanding our understanding of the chasm.³⁷ There have also been innovative solutions to addressing these inequities, with multiple studies published over the past 2 years.³⁸ A source of inequity among patients with T1D is the lack of representation of racial/ethnic minorities with T1D in clinical trials.³⁹ The T1DX-QI suggests that the equity-adapted framework for QI can be applied by research leaders to support trial diversity and representation, ensuring future device innovations are meaningful for all people with T1D.⁴⁰

Diabetes Devices

Glucose monitoring and insulin therapy are vital tools to support individuals living with T1D, and devices such as CGM and insulin pumps have become the standard of care for diabetes management (Table).⁴¹ Innovations in diabetes technology and device access are imperative for a chronic disease with no cure.

The COVID-19 pandemic created an opportunity to increase access to diabetes devices in inpatient settings. In 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration expanded the use of CGM to support remote monitoring of patients in inpatient hospital settings, simultaneously supporting the glucose monitoring needs of patients with T1D and reducing COVID-19 transmission through reduced patient-clinician contact.⁴² This effort has been expanded and will continue in 2022 and beyond,⁴³ and aligns with the growing consensus that supports patients wearing both CGMs and insulin pumps in ambulatory settings to improve patient health outcomes.⁴⁴

Since 2020, innovations in diabetes technology have improved and increased the variety of options available to people with T1D and made them easier to use (Table). New, advanced hybrid closed-loop systems have progressed to offer Bluetooth features, including automatic software upgrades, tubeless systems, and the ability to allow parents to use their smartphones to bolus for children.^45-47 The next big step in insulin delivery innovation is the release of functioning, fully closed loop systems, of which several are currently in clinical trials.⁴⁸ These systems support reduced hypoglycemia and improved time in range.⁴⁹

Additional innovations in insulin delivery have improved the user experience and expanded therapeutic options, including a variety of smart insulin pens complete with dosing logs^50,51 and even a patch to deliver insulin without the burden of injections.⁵² As barriers to diabetes technology persist,⁵³ innovations in alternate insulin delivery provide people with T1D more options to align with their personal access and technology preferences.

Innovations in CGM address cited barriers to their use, including size or overall wear.^53-55 CGMs released in the past few years are smaller in physical size, have longer durations of time between changings, are more accurate, and do not require calibrations for accuracy.

New Diabetes Medications

Many new medications and therapeutic advances have become available in the past 2 years.⁵⁶ Additionally, more medications are being tested as adjunct therapies to support glycemic management in patients with T1D, including metformin, sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 and 2 inhibitors, pramlintide, glucagon-like polypeptide-1 analogs, and glucagon receptor agonists.⁵⁷ Other recent advances include stem cell replacement therapy for patients with T1D.⁵⁸ The ultra-long-acting biosimilar insulins are one medical innovation that has been stalled, rather than propelled, during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁵⁹

Diabetes Policy Advocacy

People with T1D require insulin to survive. The cost of insulin has increased in recent years, with some studies citing a 64% to 100% increase in the past decade.^60,61 In fact, 1 in 4 insulin users report that cost has impacted their insulin use, including rationing their insulin.⁶² Lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic stressed US families financially, increasing the urgency for insulin cost caps.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic halted national conversations on drug financing,⁶³ advocacy efforts have succeeded for specific populations. The new Medicare Part D Senior Savings Model will cap the cost of insulin at $35 for a 30-day supply,⁶⁴ and 20 states passed legislation capping insulin pricing.⁶² Efforts to codify national cost caps are under debate, including the passage of the Affordable Insulin Now Act, which passed the House in March 2022 and is currently under review in the Senate.⁶⁵

 

 

Perspective: The Role of Private Philanthropy in Supporting Population Health Innovations

Funders and industry partners play a crucial role in leading and supporting innovations that improve the lives of people with T1D and reduce society’s costs of living with the disease. Data infrastructure is critical to supporting population health. While building the data infrastructure to support population health is both time- and resource-intensive, private foundations such as Helmsley are uniquely positioned—and have a responsibility—to take large, informed risks to help reach all communities with T1D.

The T1DX-QI is the largest source of population health data on T1D in the United States and is becoming the premiere data authority on its incidence, prevalence, and outcomes. The T1DX-QI enables a robust understanding of T1D-related health trends at the population level, as well as trends among clinics and providers. Pilot centers in the T1DX-QI have reported reductions in patients’ A1c and acute diabetes-related events, as well as improvements in device usage and depression screening. The ability to capture changes speaks to the promise and power of these data to demonstrate the clinical impact of QI interventions and to support the spread of best practices and learnings across health systems.

Additional philanthropic efforts have supported innovation in the last 2 years. For example, the JDRF, a nonprofit philanthropic equity firm, has supported efforts in developing artificial pancreas systems and cell therapies currently in clinical trials like teplizumab, a drug that has demonstrated delayed onset of T1D through JDRF’s T1D Fund.⁶⁶ Industry partners also have an opportunity for significant influence in this area, as they continue to fund meaningful projects to advance care for people with T1D.⁶⁷

Conclusion

We are optimistic that the innovations summarized here describe a shift in the tide of equitable T1D outcomes; however, future work is required to explore additional health equity successes that do not further exacerbate inequities. We also see further opportunities for innovative ways to engage people with T1D in their health care through conversations on social determinants of health and societal structures.

Corresponding author: Ann Mungmode, MPH, T1D Exchange, 11 Avenue de Lafayette, Boston, MA 02111; Email: [email protected]

Disclosures: Dr. Ebekozien serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for the Medtronic Advisory Board and received research grants from Medtronic Diabetes, Eli Lilly, and Dexcom.

Funding: The T1DX-QI is funded by The Leona M. and Harry B. Hemsley Charitable Trust.

From the T1D Exchange, Boston, MA (Ann Mungmode, Nicole Rioles, Jesse Cases, Dr. Ebekozien); The Leona M. and Harry B. Hemsley Charitable Trust, New York, NY (Laurel Koester); and the University of Mississippi School of Population Health, Jackson, MS (Dr. Ebekozien).

Abstract

There have been remarkable innovations in diabetes management since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, but these groundbreaking innovations are drawing limited focus as the field focuses on the adverse impact of the pandemic on patients with diabetes. This article reviews select population health innovations in diabetes management that have become available over the past 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative, a learning health network that focuses on improving care and outcomes for individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Such innovations include expanded telemedicine access, collection of real-world data, machine learning and artificial intelligence, and new diabetes medications and devices. In addition, multiple innovative studies have been undertaken to explore contributors to health inequities in diabetes, and advocacy efforts for specific populations have been successful. Looking to the future, work is required to explore additional health equity successes that do not further exacerbate inequities and to look for additional innovative ways to engage people with T1D in their health care through conversations on social determinants of health and societal structures.

Keywords: type 1 diabetes, learning health network, continuous glucose monitoring, health equity

One in 10 people in the United States has diabetes.¹ Diabetes is the nation’s second leading cause of death, costing the US health system more than $300 billion annually.² The COVID-19 pandemic presented additional health burdens for people living with diabetes. For example, preexisting diabetes was identified as a risk factor for COVID-19–associated morbidity and mortality.^3,4 Over the past 2 years, there have been remarkable innovations in diabetes management, including stem cell therapy and new medication options. Additionally, improved technology solutions have aided in diabetes management through continuous glucose monitors (CGM), smart insulin pens, advanced hybrid closed-loop systems, and continuous subcutaneous insulin injections.^5,6 Unfortunately, these groundbreaking innovations are drawing limited focus, as the field is rightfully focused on the adverse impact of the pandemic on patients with diabetes.

Learning health networks like the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative (T1DX-QI) have implemented some of these innovative solutions to improve care for people with diabetes.⁷ T1DX-QI has more than 50 data-sharing endocrinology centers that care for over 75,000 people with diabetes across the United States (Figure 1). Centers participating in the T1DX-QI use quality improvement (QI) and implementation science methods to quickly translate research into evidence-based clinical practice. T1DX-QI leads diabetes population health and health system research and supports widespread transferability across health care organizations through regular collaborative calls, conferences, and case study documentation.⁸

In this review, we summarize impactful population health innovations in diabetes management that have become available over the past 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of T1DX-QI (see Figure 2 for relevant definitions). This review is limited in scope and is not meant to be an exhaustive list of innovations. The review also reflects significant changes from the perspective of academic diabetes centers, which may not apply to rural or primary care diabetes practices.

 

 

Methods

The first (A.M.), second (H.H.), and senior (O.E.) authors conducted a scoping review of published literature using terms related to diabetes, population health, and innovation on PubMed Central and Google Scholar for the period March 2020 to June 2022. To complement the review, A.M. and O.E. also reviewed abstracts from presentations at major international diabetes conferences, including the American Diabetes Association (ADA), the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD), the T1DX-QI Learning Session Conference, and the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) 2020 to 2022 conferences.^9-14 The authors also searched FDA.gov and ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant insights. A.M. and O.E. sorted the reviewed literature into major themes (Figure 3) from the population health improvement perspective of the T1DX-QI.

Population Health Innovations in Diabetes Management

Expansion of Telemedicine Access

Telemedicine is cost-effective for patients with diabetes,¹⁵ including those with complex cases.¹⁶ Before the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine and virtual care were rare in diabetes management. However, the pandemic offered a new opportunity to expand the practice of telemedicine in diabetes management. A study from the T1DX-QI showed that telemedicine visits grew from comprising <1% of visits pre-pandemic (December 2019) to 95.2% during the pandemic (August 2020).¹⁷ Additional studies, like those conducted by Phillip et al,¹⁸ confirmed the noninferiority of telemedicine practice for patients with diabetes.Telemedicine was also found to be an effective strategy to educate patients on the use of diabetes technologies.¹⁹

Real-World Data and Disease Surveillance

As the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated outcomes for people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), a need arose to understand the immediate effects of the pandemic on people with T1D through real-world data and disease surveillance. In April 2020, the T1DX-QI initiated a multicenter surveillance study to collect data and analyze the impact of COVID-19 on people with T1D. The existing health collaborative served as a springboard for robust surveillance study, documenting numerous works on the effects of COVID-19.^3,4,20-28 Other investigators also embraced the power of real-world surveillance and real-world data.^29,30

Big Data, Machine Learning, and Artificial Intelligence

The past 2 years have seen a shift toward embracing the incredible opportunity to tap the large volume of data generated from routine care for practical insights.³¹ In particular, researchers have demonstrated the widespread application of machine learning and artificial intelligence to improve diabetes management.³² The T1DX-QI also harnessed the growing power of big data by expanding the functionality of innovative benchmarking software. The T1DX QI Portal uses electronic medical record data of diabetes patients for clinic-to-clinic benchmarking and data analysis, using business intelligence solutions.³³

Health Equity

While inequities across various health outcomes have been well documented for years,³⁴ the COVID-19 pandemic further exaggerated racial/ethnic health inequities in T1D.^23,35 In response, several organizations have outlined specific strategies to address these health inequities. Emboldened by the pandemic, the T1DX-QI announced a multipronged approach to address health inequities among patients with T1D through the Health Equity Advancement Lab (HEAL).³⁶ One of HEAL’s main components is using real-world data to champion population-level insights and demonstrate progress in QI efforts.

Multiple innovative studies have been undertaken to explore contributors to health inequities in diabetes, and these studies are expanding our understanding of the chasm.³⁷ There have also been innovative solutions to addressing these inequities, with multiple studies published over the past 2 years.³⁸ A source of inequity among patients with T1D is the lack of representation of racial/ethnic minorities with T1D in clinical trials.³⁹ The T1DX-QI suggests that the equity-adapted framework for QI can be applied by research leaders to support trial diversity and representation, ensuring future device innovations are meaningful for all people with T1D.⁴⁰

Diabetes Devices

Glucose monitoring and insulin therapy are vital tools to support individuals living with T1D, and devices such as CGM and insulin pumps have become the standard of care for diabetes management (Table).⁴¹ Innovations in diabetes technology and device access are imperative for a chronic disease with no cure.

The COVID-19 pandemic created an opportunity to increase access to diabetes devices in inpatient settings. In 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration expanded the use of CGM to support remote monitoring of patients in inpatient hospital settings, simultaneously supporting the glucose monitoring needs of patients with T1D and reducing COVID-19 transmission through reduced patient-clinician contact.⁴² This effort has been expanded and will continue in 2022 and beyond,⁴³ and aligns with the growing consensus that supports patients wearing both CGMs and insulin pumps in ambulatory settings to improve patient health outcomes.⁴⁴

Since 2020, innovations in diabetes technology have improved and increased the variety of options available to people with T1D and made them easier to use (Table). New, advanced hybrid closed-loop systems have progressed to offer Bluetooth features, including automatic software upgrades, tubeless systems, and the ability to allow parents to use their smartphones to bolus for children.^45-47 The next big step in insulin delivery innovation is the release of functioning, fully closed loop systems, of which several are currently in clinical trials.⁴⁸ These systems support reduced hypoglycemia and improved time in range.⁴⁹

Additional innovations in insulin delivery have improved the user experience and expanded therapeutic options, including a variety of smart insulin pens complete with dosing logs^50,51 and even a patch to deliver insulin without the burden of injections.⁵² As barriers to diabetes technology persist,⁵³ innovations in alternate insulin delivery provide people with T1D more options to align with their personal access and technology preferences.

Innovations in CGM address cited barriers to their use, including size or overall wear.^53-55 CGMs released in the past few years are smaller in physical size, have longer durations of time between changings, are more accurate, and do not require calibrations for accuracy.

New Diabetes Medications

Many new medications and therapeutic advances have become available in the past 2 years.⁵⁶ Additionally, more medications are being tested as adjunct therapies to support glycemic management in patients with T1D, including metformin, sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 and 2 inhibitors, pramlintide, glucagon-like polypeptide-1 analogs, and glucagon receptor agonists.⁵⁷ Other recent advances include stem cell replacement therapy for patients with T1D.⁵⁸ The ultra-long-acting biosimilar insulins are one medical innovation that has been stalled, rather than propelled, during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁵⁹

Diabetes Policy Advocacy

People with T1D require insulin to survive. The cost of insulin has increased in recent years, with some studies citing a 64% to 100% increase in the past decade.^60,61 In fact, 1 in 4 insulin users report that cost has impacted their insulin use, including rationing their insulin.⁶² Lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic stressed US families financially, increasing the urgency for insulin cost caps.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic halted national conversations on drug financing,⁶³ advocacy efforts have succeeded for specific populations. The new Medicare Part D Senior Savings Model will cap the cost of insulin at $35 for a 30-day supply,⁶⁴ and 20 states passed legislation capping insulin pricing.⁶² Efforts to codify national cost caps are under debate, including the passage of the Affordable Insulin Now Act, which passed the House in March 2022 and is currently under review in the Senate.⁶⁵

 

 

Perspective: The Role of Private Philanthropy in Supporting Population Health Innovations

Funders and industry partners play a crucial role in leading and supporting innovations that improve the lives of people with T1D and reduce society’s costs of living with the disease. Data infrastructure is critical to supporting population health. While building the data infrastructure to support population health is both time- and resource-intensive, private foundations such as Helmsley are uniquely positioned—and have a responsibility—to take large, informed risks to help reach all communities with T1D.

The T1DX-QI is the largest source of population health data on T1D in the United States and is becoming the premiere data authority on its incidence, prevalence, and outcomes. The T1DX-QI enables a robust understanding of T1D-related health trends at the population level, as well as trends among clinics and providers. Pilot centers in the T1DX-QI have reported reductions in patients’ A1c and acute diabetes-related events, as well as improvements in device usage and depression screening. The ability to capture changes speaks to the promise and power of these data to demonstrate the clinical impact of QI interventions and to support the spread of best practices and learnings across health systems.

Additional philanthropic efforts have supported innovation in the last 2 years. For example, the JDRF, a nonprofit philanthropic equity firm, has supported efforts in developing artificial pancreas systems and cell therapies currently in clinical trials like teplizumab, a drug that has demonstrated delayed onset of T1D through JDRF’s T1D Fund.⁶⁶ Industry partners also have an opportunity for significant influence in this area, as they continue to fund meaningful projects to advance care for people with T1D.⁶⁷

Conclusion

We are optimistic that the innovations summarized here describe a shift in the tide of equitable T1D outcomes; however, future work is required to explore additional health equity successes that do not further exacerbate inequities. We also see further opportunities for innovative ways to engage people with T1D in their health care through conversations on social determinants of health and societal structures.

Corresponding author: Ann Mungmode, MPH, T1D Exchange, 11 Avenue de Lafayette, Boston, MA 02111; Email: [email protected]

Disclosures: Dr. Ebekozien serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for the Medtronic Advisory Board and received research grants from Medtronic Diabetes, Eli Lilly, and Dexcom.

Funding: The T1DX-QI is funded by The Leona M. and Harry B. Hemsley Charitable Trust.

From the T1D Exchange, Boston, MA (Ann Mungmode, Nicole Rioles, Jesse Cases, Dr. Ebekozien); The Leona M. and Harry B. Hemsley Charitable Trust, New York, NY (Laurel Koester); and the University of Mississippi School of Population Health, Jackson, MS (Dr. Ebekozien).

Abstract

There have been remarkable innovations in diabetes management since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, but these groundbreaking innovations are drawing limited focus as the field focuses on the adverse impact of the pandemic on patients with diabetes. This article reviews select population health innovations in diabetes management that have become available over the past 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative, a learning health network that focuses on improving care and outcomes for individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Such innovations include expanded telemedicine access, collection of real-world data, machine learning and artificial intelligence, and new diabetes medications and devices. In addition, multiple innovative studies have been undertaken to explore contributors to health inequities in diabetes, and advocacy efforts for specific populations have been successful. Looking to the future, work is required to explore additional health equity successes that do not further exacerbate inequities and to look for additional innovative ways to engage people with T1D in their health care through conversations on social determinants of health and societal structures.

Keywords: type 1 diabetes, learning health network, continuous glucose monitoring, health equity

One in 10 people in the United States has diabetes.¹ Diabetes is the nation’s second leading cause of death, costing the US health system more than $300 billion annually.² The COVID-19 pandemic presented additional health burdens for people living with diabetes. For example, preexisting diabetes was identified as a risk factor for COVID-19–associated morbidity and mortality.^3,4 Over the past 2 years, there have been remarkable innovations in diabetes management, including stem cell therapy and new medication options. Additionally, improved technology solutions have aided in diabetes management through continuous glucose monitors (CGM), smart insulin pens, advanced hybrid closed-loop systems, and continuous subcutaneous insulin injections.^5,6 Unfortunately, these groundbreaking innovations are drawing limited focus, as the field is rightfully focused on the adverse impact of the pandemic on patients with diabetes.

Learning health networks like the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative (T1DX-QI) have implemented some of these innovative solutions to improve care for people with diabetes.⁷ T1DX-QI has more than 50 data-sharing endocrinology centers that care for over 75,000 people with diabetes across the United States (Figure 1). Centers participating in the T1DX-QI use quality improvement (QI) and implementation science methods to quickly translate research into evidence-based clinical practice. T1DX-QI leads diabetes population health and health system research and supports widespread transferability across health care organizations through regular collaborative calls, conferences, and case study documentation.⁸

In this review, we summarize impactful population health innovations in diabetes management that have become available over the past 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of T1DX-QI (see Figure 2 for relevant definitions). This review is limited in scope and is not meant to be an exhaustive list of innovations. The review also reflects significant changes from the perspective of academic diabetes centers, which may not apply to rural or primary care diabetes practices.

 

 

Methods

The first (A.M.), second (H.H.), and senior (O.E.) authors conducted a scoping review of published literature using terms related to diabetes, population health, and innovation on PubMed Central and Google Scholar for the period March 2020 to June 2022. To complement the review, A.M. and O.E. also reviewed abstracts from presentations at major international diabetes conferences, including the American Diabetes Association (ADA), the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD), the T1DX-QI Learning Session Conference, and the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) 2020 to 2022 conferences.^9-14 The authors also searched FDA.gov and ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant insights. A.M. and O.E. sorted the reviewed literature into major themes (Figure 3) from the population health improvement perspective of the T1DX-QI.

Population Health Innovations in Diabetes Management

Expansion of Telemedicine Access

Telemedicine is cost-effective for patients with diabetes,¹⁵ including those with complex cases.¹⁶ Before the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine and virtual care were rare in diabetes management. However, the pandemic offered a new opportunity to expand the practice of telemedicine in diabetes management. A study from the T1DX-QI showed that telemedicine visits grew from comprising <1% of visits pre-pandemic (December 2019) to 95.2% during the pandemic (August 2020).¹⁷ Additional studies, like those conducted by Phillip et al,¹⁸ confirmed the noninferiority of telemedicine practice for patients with diabetes.Telemedicine was also found to be an effective strategy to educate patients on the use of diabetes technologies.¹⁹

Real-World Data and Disease Surveillance

As the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated outcomes for people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), a need arose to understand the immediate effects of the pandemic on people with T1D through real-world data and disease surveillance. In April 2020, the T1DX-QI initiated a multicenter surveillance study to collect data and analyze the impact of COVID-19 on people with T1D. The existing health collaborative served as a springboard for robust surveillance study, documenting numerous works on the effects of COVID-19.^3,4,20-28 Other investigators also embraced the power of real-world surveillance and real-world data.^29,30

Big Data, Machine Learning, and Artificial Intelligence

The past 2 years have seen a shift toward embracing the incredible opportunity to tap the large volume of data generated from routine care for practical insights.³¹ In particular, researchers have demonstrated the widespread application of machine learning and artificial intelligence to improve diabetes management.³² The T1DX-QI also harnessed the growing power of big data by expanding the functionality of innovative benchmarking software. The T1DX QI Portal uses electronic medical record data of diabetes patients for clinic-to-clinic benchmarking and data analysis, using business intelligence solutions.³³

Health Equity

While inequities across various health outcomes have been well documented for years,³⁴ the COVID-19 pandemic further exaggerated racial/ethnic health inequities in T1D.^23,35 In response, several organizations have outlined specific strategies to address these health inequities. Emboldened by the pandemic, the T1DX-QI announced a multipronged approach to address health inequities among patients with T1D through the Health Equity Advancement Lab (HEAL).³⁶ One of HEAL’s main components is using real-world data to champion population-level insights and demonstrate progress in QI efforts.

Multiple innovative studies have been undertaken to explore contributors to health inequities in diabetes, and these studies are expanding our understanding of the chasm.³⁷ There have also been innovative solutions to addressing these inequities, with multiple studies published over the past 2 years.³⁸ A source of inequity among patients with T1D is the lack of representation of racial/ethnic minorities with T1D in clinical trials.³⁹ The T1DX-QI suggests that the equity-adapted framework for QI can be applied by research leaders to support trial diversity and representation, ensuring future device innovations are meaningful for all people with T1D.⁴⁰

Diabetes Devices

Glucose monitoring and insulin therapy are vital tools to support individuals living with T1D, and devices such as CGM and insulin pumps have become the standard of care for diabetes management (Table).⁴¹ Innovations in diabetes technology and device access are imperative for a chronic disease with no cure.

The COVID-19 pandemic created an opportunity to increase access to diabetes devices in inpatient settings. In 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration expanded the use of CGM to support remote monitoring of patients in inpatient hospital settings, simultaneously supporting the glucose monitoring needs of patients with T1D and reducing COVID-19 transmission through reduced patient-clinician contact.⁴² This effort has been expanded and will continue in 2022 and beyond,⁴³ and aligns with the growing consensus that supports patients wearing both CGMs and insulin pumps in ambulatory settings to improve patient health outcomes.⁴⁴

Since 2020, innovations in diabetes technology have improved and increased the variety of options available to people with T1D and made them easier to use (Table). New, advanced hybrid closed-loop systems have progressed to offer Bluetooth features, including automatic software upgrades, tubeless systems, and the ability to allow parents to use their smartphones to bolus for children.^45-47 The next big step in insulin delivery innovation is the release of functioning, fully closed loop systems, of which several are currently in clinical trials.⁴⁸ These systems support reduced hypoglycemia and improved time in range.⁴⁹

Additional innovations in insulin delivery have improved the user experience and expanded therapeutic options, including a variety of smart insulin pens complete with dosing logs^50,51 and even a patch to deliver insulin without the burden of injections.⁵² As barriers to diabetes technology persist,⁵³ innovations in alternate insulin delivery provide people with T1D more options to align with their personal access and technology preferences.

Innovations in CGM address cited barriers to their use, including size or overall wear.^53-55 CGMs released in the past few years are smaller in physical size, have longer durations of time between changings, are more accurate, and do not require calibrations for accuracy.

New Diabetes Medications

Many new medications and therapeutic advances have become available in the past 2 years.⁵⁶ Additionally, more medications are being tested as adjunct therapies to support glycemic management in patients with T1D, including metformin, sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 and 2 inhibitors, pramlintide, glucagon-like polypeptide-1 analogs, and glucagon receptor agonists.⁵⁷ Other recent advances include stem cell replacement therapy for patients with T1D.⁵⁸ The ultra-long-acting biosimilar insulins are one medical innovation that has been stalled, rather than propelled, during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁵⁹

Diabetes Policy Advocacy

People with T1D require insulin to survive. The cost of insulin has increased in recent years, with some studies citing a 64% to 100% increase in the past decade.^60,61 In fact, 1 in 4 insulin users report that cost has impacted their insulin use, including rationing their insulin.⁶² Lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic stressed US families financially, increasing the urgency for insulin cost caps.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic halted national conversations on drug financing,⁶³ advocacy efforts have succeeded for specific populations. The new Medicare Part D Senior Savings Model will cap the cost of insulin at $35 for a 30-day supply,⁶⁴ and 20 states passed legislation capping insulin pricing.⁶² Efforts to codify national cost caps are under debate, including the passage of the Affordable Insulin Now Act, which passed the House in March 2022 and is currently under review in the Senate.⁶⁵

 

 

Perspective: The Role of Private Philanthropy in Supporting Population Health Innovations

Funders and industry partners play a crucial role in leading and supporting innovations that improve the lives of people with T1D and reduce society’s costs of living with the disease. Data infrastructure is critical to supporting population health. While building the data infrastructure to support population health is both time- and resource-intensive, private foundations such as Helmsley are uniquely positioned—and have a responsibility—to take large, informed risks to help reach all communities with T1D.

The T1DX-QI is the largest source of population health data on T1D in the United States and is becoming the premiere data authority on its incidence, prevalence, and outcomes. The T1DX-QI enables a robust understanding of T1D-related health trends at the population level, as well as trends among clinics and providers. Pilot centers in the T1DX-QI have reported reductions in patients’ A1c and acute diabetes-related events, as well as improvements in device usage and depression screening. The ability to capture changes speaks to the promise and power of these data to demonstrate the clinical impact of QI interventions and to support the spread of best practices and learnings across health systems.

Additional philanthropic efforts have supported innovation in the last 2 years. For example, the JDRF, a nonprofit philanthropic equity firm, has supported efforts in developing artificial pancreas systems and cell therapies currently in clinical trials like teplizumab, a drug that has demonstrated delayed onset of T1D through JDRF’s T1D Fund.⁶⁶ Industry partners also have an opportunity for significant influence in this area, as they continue to fund meaningful projects to advance care for people with T1D.⁶⁷

Conclusion

We are optimistic that the innovations summarized here describe a shift in the tide of equitable T1D outcomes; however, future work is required to explore additional health equity successes that do not further exacerbate inequities. We also see further opportunities for innovative ways to engage people with T1D in their health care through conversations on social determinants of health and societal structures.

Corresponding author: Ann Mungmode, MPH, T1D Exchange, 11 Avenue de Lafayette, Boston, MA 02111; Email: [email protected]

Disclosures: Dr. Ebekozien serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for the Medtronic Advisory Board and received research grants from Medtronic Diabetes, Eli Lilly, and Dexcom.

Funding: The T1DX-QI is funded by The Leona M. and Harry B. Hemsley Charitable Trust.

Study 1 Overview (Bayliss et al)

Objective: To examine the effect of a deprescribing educational intervention on medication use in older adults with cognitive impairment.

Design: This was a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial conducted in 8 primary care clinics that are part of a nonprofit health care system.

Setting and participants: The primary care clinic populations ranged from 170 to 1125 patients per clinic. The primary care clinics were randomly assigned to intervention or control using a uniform distribution in blocks by clinic size. Eligibility criteria for participants at those practices included age 65 years or older; health plan enrollment at least 1 year prior to intervention; diagnosis of Alzheimer disease and related dementia (ADRD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) by International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision code or from problem list; 1 or more chronic conditions from those in the Chronic Conditions Warehouse; and 5 or more long-term medications. Those who scheduled a visit at their primary care clinic in advance were eligible for the intervention. Primary care clinicians in intervention clinics were eligible to receive the clinician portion of the intervention. A total of 1433 participants were enrolled in the intervention group, and 1579 participants were enrolled in the control group.

Intervention: The intervention included 2 components: a patient and family component with materials mailed in advance of their primary care visits and a clinician component comprising monthly educational materials on deprescribing and notification in the electronic health record about visits with patient participants. The patient and family component consisted of a brochure titled “Managing Medication” and a questionnaire on attitudes toward deprescribing intended to educate patients and family about deprescribing. Clinicians at intervention clinics received an educational presentation at a monthly clinician meeting as well as tip sheets and a poster on deprescribing topics, and they also were notified of upcoming appointments with patients who received the patient component of the intervention. For the control group, patients and family did not receive any materials, and clinicians did not receive intervention materials or notification of participants enrolled in the trial. Usual care in both intervention and control groups included medication reconciliation and electronic health record alerts for potentially high-risk medications.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcomes of the study were the number of long-term medications per individual and the proportion of patients prescribed 1 or more potentially inappropriate medications. Outcome measurements were extracted from the electronic clinical data, and outcomes were assessed at 6 months, which involved comparing counts of medications at baseline with medications at 6 months. Long-term medications were defined as medications that are prescribed for 28 days or more based on pharmacy dispensing data. Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) were defined using the Beers list of medications to avoid in those with cognitive impairment and opioid medications. Analyses were conducted as intention to treat.

Main results: In the intervention group and control group, 56.2% and 54.4% of participants were women, and the mean age was 80.1 years (SD, 7.2) and 79.9 years (SD, 7.5), respectively. At baseline, the mean number of long-term medications was 7.0 (SD, 2.1) in the intervention group and 7.0 (SD, 2.2) in the control group. The proportion of patients taking any PIMs was 30.5% in the intervention group and 29.6% in the control group. At 6 months, the mean number of long-term medications was 6.4 in the intervention group and 6.5 in the control group, with an adjusted difference of –0.1 (95% CI, –0.2 to 0.04; P = .14); the proportion of patients with any PIMs was 17.8% in the intervention group and 20.9% in the control group, with an adjusted difference of –3.2% (95% CI, –6.2 to 0.4; P = .08). Preplanned analyses to examine subgroup differences for those with a higher number of medications (7+ vs 5 or 6 medications) did not find different effects of the intervention.

Conclusion: This educational intervention on deprescribing did not result in reductions in the number of medications or the use of PIMs in patients with cognitive impairment.

Study 2 Overview (Gedde et al)

Objective: To examine the effect of a deprescribing intervention (COSMOS) on medication use for nursing home residents.

Design: This was a randomized clinical trial.

Setting and participants: This trial was conducted in 67 units in 33 nursing homes in Norway. Participants were nursing home residents recruited from August 2014 to March 2015. Inclusion criteria included adults aged 65 years and older with at least 2 years of residency in nursing homes. Exclusion criteria included diagnosis of schizophrenia and a life expectancy of 6 months or less. Participants were followed for 4 months; participants were considered lost to follow-up if they died or moved from the nursing home unit. The analyses were per protocol and did not include those lost to follow-up or those who did not undergo a medication review in the intervention group. A total of 217 and 211 residents were included in the intervention and control groups, respectively.

Intervention: The intervention contained 5 components: communication and advance care planning, systematic pain management, medication reviews with collegial mentoring, organization of activities adjusted to needs and preferences, and safety. For medication review, the nursing home physician reviewed medications together with a nurse and study physicians who provided mentoring. The medication review involved a structured process that used assessment tools for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), activities of daily living (ADL), pain, cognitive status, well-being and quality of life, and clinical metrics of blood pressure, pulse, and body mass index. The study utilized the START/STOPP criteria¹ for medication use in addition to a list of medications with anticholinergic properties for the medication review. In addition, drug interactions were documented through a drug interaction database; the team also incorporated patient wishes and concerns in the medication reviews. The nursing home physician made final decisions on medications. For the control group, nursing home residents received usual care without this intervention.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome of the study was the mean change in the number of prescribed psychotropic medications, both regularly scheduled and total medications (which also included on-demand drugs) received at 4 months when compared to baseline. Psychotropic medications included antipsychotics, anxiolytics, hypnotics or sedatives, antidepressants, and antidementia drugs. Secondary outcomes included mean changes in BPSD using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing home version (NPI-NH) and the Cornell Scale for Depression for Dementia (CSDD) and ADL using the Physical Self Maintenance Scale (PSMS).

Main results: In both the intervention and control groups, 76% of participants were women, and mean age was 86.3 years (SD, 7.95) in the intervention group and 86.6 years (SD, 7.21) in the control group. At baseline, the mean number of total medications was 10.9 (SD, 4.6) in the intervention group and 10.9 (SD, 4.7) in the control group, and the mean number of psychotropic medications was 2.2 (SD, 1.6) and 2.2 (SD, 1.7) in the intervention and control groups, respectively. At 4 months, the mean change from baseline of total psychotropic medications was –0.34 in the intervention group and 0.01 in the control group (P < .001), and the mean change of regularly scheduled psychotropic medications was –0.21 in the intervention group and 0.02 in the control group (P < .001). Measures of BPSD and depression did not differ between intervention and control groups, and ADL showed a small improvement in the intervention group.

Conclusion: This intervention reduced the use of psychotropic medications in nursing home residents without worsening BPSD or depression and may have yielded improvements in ADL.

Commentary

Polypharmacy is common among older adults, as many of them have multiple chronic conditions and often take multiple medications for managing them. Polypharmacy increases the risk of drug interactions and adverse effects from medications; older adults who are frail and/or who have cognitive impairment are especially at risk. Reducing medication use, especially medications likely to cause adverse effects such as those with anticholinergic properties, has the potential to yield beneficial effects while reducing the burden of taking medications. A large randomized trial found that a pharmacist-led education intervention can be effective in reducing PIM use in community-dwelling older adults,² and that targeting patient motivation and capacity to deprescribe could be effective.³ This study by Bayliss and colleagues (Study 1), however, fell short of the effects seen in the earlier D-PRESCRIBE trial. One of the reasons for these findings may be that the clinician portion of the intervention was less intensive than that used in the earlier trial; specifically, in the present study, clinicians were not provided with or expected to utilize tools for structured medication review or deprescribing. Although the intervention primes the patient and family for discussions around deprescribing through the use of a brochure and questionnaire, the clinician portion of the intervention was less structured. Another example of an effective intervention that provided a more structured deprescribing intervention beyond education of clinicians utilized electronic decision-support to assist with deprescribing.⁴

The findings from the Gedde et al study (Study 2) are comparable to those of prior studies in the nursing home population,⁵ where participants are likely to take a large number of medications, including psychotropic medications, and are more likely to be frail. However, Gedde and colleagues employed a bundled intervention⁶ that included other components besides medication review, and thus it is unclear whether the effect on ADL can be attributed to the deprescribing of medications alone. Gedde et al’s finding that deprescribing can reduce the use of psychotropic medications while not leading to differences in behavioral and psychologic symptoms or depression is an important contribution to our knowledge about polypharmacy and deprescribing in older patients. Thus, nursing home residents, their families, and clinicians could expect that the deprescribing of psychotropic medications does not lead to worsening symptoms. Of note, the clinician portion of the intervention in the Gedde et al study was quite structured, and this structure may have contributed to the observed effects.

Applications for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

Both studies add to the literature on deprescribing and may offer options for researchers and clinicians who are considering potential components of an effective deprescribing intervention. Patient activation for deprescribing via the methods used in these 2 studies may help to prime patients for conversations about deprescribing; however, as shown by the Bayliss et al study, a more structured approach to clinical encounters may be needed when deprescribing, such as the use of tools in the electronic health record, in order to reduce the use of medication deemed unnecessary or potentially harmful. Further studies should examine the effect of deprescribing on medication use, but perhaps even more importantly, how deprescribing impacts patient outcomes both in terms of risks and benefits.

Practice Points

• A more structured approach to clinical encounters (eg, the use of tools in the electronic health record) may be needed when deprescribing unnecessary or potentially harmful medications in older patients in community settings.
• In the nursing home setting, structured deprescribing intervention can reduce the use of psychotropic medications while not leading to differences in behavioral and psychologic symptoms or depression.

–William W. Hung, MD, MPH

Study 1 Overview (Bayliss et al)

Objective: To examine the effect of a deprescribing educational intervention on medication use in older adults with cognitive impairment.

Design: This was a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial conducted in 8 primary care clinics that are part of a nonprofit health care system.

Setting and participants: The primary care clinic populations ranged from 170 to 1125 patients per clinic. The primary care clinics were randomly assigned to intervention or control using a uniform distribution in blocks by clinic size. Eligibility criteria for participants at those practices included age 65 years or older; health plan enrollment at least 1 year prior to intervention; diagnosis of Alzheimer disease and related dementia (ADRD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) by International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision code or from problem list; 1 or more chronic conditions from those in the Chronic Conditions Warehouse; and 5 or more long-term medications. Those who scheduled a visit at their primary care clinic in advance were eligible for the intervention. Primary care clinicians in intervention clinics were eligible to receive the clinician portion of the intervention. A total of 1433 participants were enrolled in the intervention group, and 1579 participants were enrolled in the control group.

Intervention: The intervention included 2 components: a patient and family component with materials mailed in advance of their primary care visits and a clinician component comprising monthly educational materials on deprescribing and notification in the electronic health record about visits with patient participants. The patient and family component consisted of a brochure titled “Managing Medication” and a questionnaire on attitudes toward deprescribing intended to educate patients and family about deprescribing. Clinicians at intervention clinics received an educational presentation at a monthly clinician meeting as well as tip sheets and a poster on deprescribing topics, and they also were notified of upcoming appointments with patients who received the patient component of the intervention. For the control group, patients and family did not receive any materials, and clinicians did not receive intervention materials or notification of participants enrolled in the trial. Usual care in both intervention and control groups included medication reconciliation and electronic health record alerts for potentially high-risk medications.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcomes of the study were the number of long-term medications per individual and the proportion of patients prescribed 1 or more potentially inappropriate medications. Outcome measurements were extracted from the electronic clinical data, and outcomes were assessed at 6 months, which involved comparing counts of medications at baseline with medications at 6 months. Long-term medications were defined as medications that are prescribed for 28 days or more based on pharmacy dispensing data. Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) were defined using the Beers list of medications to avoid in those with cognitive impairment and opioid medications. Analyses were conducted as intention to treat.

Main results: In the intervention group and control group, 56.2% and 54.4% of participants were women, and the mean age was 80.1 years (SD, 7.2) and 79.9 years (SD, 7.5), respectively. At baseline, the mean number of long-term medications was 7.0 (SD, 2.1) in the intervention group and 7.0 (SD, 2.2) in the control group. The proportion of patients taking any PIMs was 30.5% in the intervention group and 29.6% in the control group. At 6 months, the mean number of long-term medications was 6.4 in the intervention group and 6.5 in the control group, with an adjusted difference of –0.1 (95% CI, –0.2 to 0.04; P = .14); the proportion of patients with any PIMs was 17.8% in the intervention group and 20.9% in the control group, with an adjusted difference of –3.2% (95% CI, –6.2 to 0.4; P = .08). Preplanned analyses to examine subgroup differences for those with a higher number of medications (7+ vs 5 or 6 medications) did not find different effects of the intervention.

Conclusion: This educational intervention on deprescribing did not result in reductions in the number of medications or the use of PIMs in patients with cognitive impairment.

Study 2 Overview (Gedde et al)

Objective: To examine the effect of a deprescribing intervention (COSMOS) on medication use for nursing home residents.

Design: This was a randomized clinical trial.

Setting and participants: This trial was conducted in 67 units in 33 nursing homes in Norway. Participants were nursing home residents recruited from August 2014 to March 2015. Inclusion criteria included adults aged 65 years and older with at least 2 years of residency in nursing homes. Exclusion criteria included diagnosis of schizophrenia and a life expectancy of 6 months or less. Participants were followed for 4 months; participants were considered lost to follow-up if they died or moved from the nursing home unit. The analyses were per protocol and did not include those lost to follow-up or those who did not undergo a medication review in the intervention group. A total of 217 and 211 residents were included in the intervention and control groups, respectively.

Intervention: The intervention contained 5 components: communication and advance care planning, systematic pain management, medication reviews with collegial mentoring, organization of activities adjusted to needs and preferences, and safety. For medication review, the nursing home physician reviewed medications together with a nurse and study physicians who provided mentoring. The medication review involved a structured process that used assessment tools for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), activities of daily living (ADL), pain, cognitive status, well-being and quality of life, and clinical metrics of blood pressure, pulse, and body mass index. The study utilized the START/STOPP criteria¹ for medication use in addition to a list of medications with anticholinergic properties for the medication review. In addition, drug interactions were documented through a drug interaction database; the team also incorporated patient wishes and concerns in the medication reviews. The nursing home physician made final decisions on medications. For the control group, nursing home residents received usual care without this intervention.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome of the study was the mean change in the number of prescribed psychotropic medications, both regularly scheduled and total medications (which also included on-demand drugs) received at 4 months when compared to baseline. Psychotropic medications included antipsychotics, anxiolytics, hypnotics or sedatives, antidepressants, and antidementia drugs. Secondary outcomes included mean changes in BPSD using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing home version (NPI-NH) and the Cornell Scale for Depression for Dementia (CSDD) and ADL using the Physical Self Maintenance Scale (PSMS).

Main results: In both the intervention and control groups, 76% of participants were women, and mean age was 86.3 years (SD, 7.95) in the intervention group and 86.6 years (SD, 7.21) in the control group. At baseline, the mean number of total medications was 10.9 (SD, 4.6) in the intervention group and 10.9 (SD, 4.7) in the control group, and the mean number of psychotropic medications was 2.2 (SD, 1.6) and 2.2 (SD, 1.7) in the intervention and control groups, respectively. At 4 months, the mean change from baseline of total psychotropic medications was –0.34 in the intervention group and 0.01 in the control group (P < .001), and the mean change of regularly scheduled psychotropic medications was –0.21 in the intervention group and 0.02 in the control group (P < .001). Measures of BPSD and depression did not differ between intervention and control groups, and ADL showed a small improvement in the intervention group.

Conclusion: This intervention reduced the use of psychotropic medications in nursing home residents without worsening BPSD or depression and may have yielded improvements in ADL.

Commentary

Polypharmacy is common among older adults, as many of them have multiple chronic conditions and often take multiple medications for managing them. Polypharmacy increases the risk of drug interactions and adverse effects from medications; older adults who are frail and/or who have cognitive impairment are especially at risk. Reducing medication use, especially medications likely to cause adverse effects such as those with anticholinergic properties, has the potential to yield beneficial effects while reducing the burden of taking medications. A large randomized trial found that a pharmacist-led education intervention can be effective in reducing PIM use in community-dwelling older adults,² and that targeting patient motivation and capacity to deprescribe could be effective.³ This study by Bayliss and colleagues (Study 1), however, fell short of the effects seen in the earlier D-PRESCRIBE trial. One of the reasons for these findings may be that the clinician portion of the intervention was less intensive than that used in the earlier trial; specifically, in the present study, clinicians were not provided with or expected to utilize tools for structured medication review or deprescribing. Although the intervention primes the patient and family for discussions around deprescribing through the use of a brochure and questionnaire, the clinician portion of the intervention was less structured. Another example of an effective intervention that provided a more structured deprescribing intervention beyond education of clinicians utilized electronic decision-support to assist with deprescribing.⁴

The findings from the Gedde et al study (Study 2) are comparable to those of prior studies in the nursing home population,⁵ where participants are likely to take a large number of medications, including psychotropic medications, and are more likely to be frail. However, Gedde and colleagues employed a bundled intervention⁶ that included other components besides medication review, and thus it is unclear whether the effect on ADL can be attributed to the deprescribing of medications alone. Gedde et al’s finding that deprescribing can reduce the use of psychotropic medications while not leading to differences in behavioral and psychologic symptoms or depression is an important contribution to our knowledge about polypharmacy and deprescribing in older patients. Thus, nursing home residents, their families, and clinicians could expect that the deprescribing of psychotropic medications does not lead to worsening symptoms. Of note, the clinician portion of the intervention in the Gedde et al study was quite structured, and this structure may have contributed to the observed effects.

Applications for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

Both studies add to the literature on deprescribing and may offer options for researchers and clinicians who are considering potential components of an effective deprescribing intervention. Patient activation for deprescribing via the methods used in these 2 studies may help to prime patients for conversations about deprescribing; however, as shown by the Bayliss et al study, a more structured approach to clinical encounters may be needed when deprescribing, such as the use of tools in the electronic health record, in order to reduce the use of medication deemed unnecessary or potentially harmful. Further studies should examine the effect of deprescribing on medication use, but perhaps even more importantly, how deprescribing impacts patient outcomes both in terms of risks and benefits.

Practice Points

• A more structured approach to clinical encounters (eg, the use of tools in the electronic health record) may be needed when deprescribing unnecessary or potentially harmful medications in older patients in community settings.
• In the nursing home setting, structured deprescribing intervention can reduce the use of psychotropic medications while not leading to differences in behavioral and psychologic symptoms or depression.

–William W. Hung, MD, MPH

Study 1 Overview (Bayliss et al)

Objective: To examine the effect of a deprescribing educational intervention on medication use in older adults with cognitive impairment.

Design: This was a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial conducted in 8 primary care clinics that are part of a nonprofit health care system.

Setting and participants: The primary care clinic populations ranged from 170 to 1125 patients per clinic. The primary care clinics were randomly assigned to intervention or control using a uniform distribution in blocks by clinic size. Eligibility criteria for participants at those practices included age 65 years or older; health plan enrollment at least 1 year prior to intervention; diagnosis of Alzheimer disease and related dementia (ADRD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) by International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision code or from problem list; 1 or more chronic conditions from those in the Chronic Conditions Warehouse; and 5 or more long-term medications. Those who scheduled a visit at their primary care clinic in advance were eligible for the intervention. Primary care clinicians in intervention clinics were eligible to receive the clinician portion of the intervention. A total of 1433 participants were enrolled in the intervention group, and 1579 participants were enrolled in the control group.

Intervention: The intervention included 2 components: a patient and family component with materials mailed in advance of their primary care visits and a clinician component comprising monthly educational materials on deprescribing and notification in the electronic health record about visits with patient participants. The patient and family component consisted of a brochure titled “Managing Medication” and a questionnaire on attitudes toward deprescribing intended to educate patients and family about deprescribing. Clinicians at intervention clinics received an educational presentation at a monthly clinician meeting as well as tip sheets and a poster on deprescribing topics, and they also were notified of upcoming appointments with patients who received the patient component of the intervention. For the control group, patients and family did not receive any materials, and clinicians did not receive intervention materials or notification of participants enrolled in the trial. Usual care in both intervention and control groups included medication reconciliation and electronic health record alerts for potentially high-risk medications.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcomes of the study were the number of long-term medications per individual and the proportion of patients prescribed 1 or more potentially inappropriate medications. Outcome measurements were extracted from the electronic clinical data, and outcomes were assessed at 6 months, which involved comparing counts of medications at baseline with medications at 6 months. Long-term medications were defined as medications that are prescribed for 28 days or more based on pharmacy dispensing data. Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) were defined using the Beers list of medications to avoid in those with cognitive impairment and opioid medications. Analyses were conducted as intention to treat.

Main results: In the intervention group and control group, 56.2% and 54.4% of participants were women, and the mean age was 80.1 years (SD, 7.2) and 79.9 years (SD, 7.5), respectively. At baseline, the mean number of long-term medications was 7.0 (SD, 2.1) in the intervention group and 7.0 (SD, 2.2) in the control group. The proportion of patients taking any PIMs was 30.5% in the intervention group and 29.6% in the control group. At 6 months, the mean number of long-term medications was 6.4 in the intervention group and 6.5 in the control group, with an adjusted difference of –0.1 (95% CI, –0.2 to 0.04; P = .14); the proportion of patients with any PIMs was 17.8% in the intervention group and 20.9% in the control group, with an adjusted difference of –3.2% (95% CI, –6.2 to 0.4; P = .08). Preplanned analyses to examine subgroup differences for those with a higher number of medications (7+ vs 5 or 6 medications) did not find different effects of the intervention.

Conclusion: This educational intervention on deprescribing did not result in reductions in the number of medications or the use of PIMs in patients with cognitive impairment.

Study 2 Overview (Gedde et al)

Objective: To examine the effect of a deprescribing intervention (COSMOS) on medication use for nursing home residents.

Design: This was a randomized clinical trial.

Setting and participants: This trial was conducted in 67 units in 33 nursing homes in Norway. Participants were nursing home residents recruited from August 2014 to March 2015. Inclusion criteria included adults aged 65 years and older with at least 2 years of residency in nursing homes. Exclusion criteria included diagnosis of schizophrenia and a life expectancy of 6 months or less. Participants were followed for 4 months; participants were considered lost to follow-up if they died or moved from the nursing home unit. The analyses were per protocol and did not include those lost to follow-up or those who did not undergo a medication review in the intervention group. A total of 217 and 211 residents were included in the intervention and control groups, respectively.

Intervention: The intervention contained 5 components: communication and advance care planning, systematic pain management, medication reviews with collegial mentoring, organization of activities adjusted to needs and preferences, and safety. For medication review, the nursing home physician reviewed medications together with a nurse and study physicians who provided mentoring. The medication review involved a structured process that used assessment tools for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), activities of daily living (ADL), pain, cognitive status, well-being and quality of life, and clinical metrics of blood pressure, pulse, and body mass index. The study utilized the START/STOPP criteria¹ for medication use in addition to a list of medications with anticholinergic properties for the medication review. In addition, drug interactions were documented through a drug interaction database; the team also incorporated patient wishes and concerns in the medication reviews. The nursing home physician made final decisions on medications. For the control group, nursing home residents received usual care without this intervention.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome of the study was the mean change in the number of prescribed psychotropic medications, both regularly scheduled and total medications (which also included on-demand drugs) received at 4 months when compared to baseline. Psychotropic medications included antipsychotics, anxiolytics, hypnotics or sedatives, antidepressants, and antidementia drugs. Secondary outcomes included mean changes in BPSD using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing home version (NPI-NH) and the Cornell Scale for Depression for Dementia (CSDD) and ADL using the Physical Self Maintenance Scale (PSMS).

Main results: In both the intervention and control groups, 76% of participants were women, and mean age was 86.3 years (SD, 7.95) in the intervention group and 86.6 years (SD, 7.21) in the control group. At baseline, the mean number of total medications was 10.9 (SD, 4.6) in the intervention group and 10.9 (SD, 4.7) in the control group, and the mean number of psychotropic medications was 2.2 (SD, 1.6) and 2.2 (SD, 1.7) in the intervention and control groups, respectively. At 4 months, the mean change from baseline of total psychotropic medications was –0.34 in the intervention group and 0.01 in the control group (P < .001), and the mean change of regularly scheduled psychotropic medications was –0.21 in the intervention group and 0.02 in the control group (P < .001). Measures of BPSD and depression did not differ between intervention and control groups, and ADL showed a small improvement in the intervention group.

Conclusion: This intervention reduced the use of psychotropic medications in nursing home residents without worsening BPSD or depression and may have yielded improvements in ADL.

Commentary

Polypharmacy is common among older adults, as many of them have multiple chronic conditions and often take multiple medications for managing them. Polypharmacy increases the risk of drug interactions and adverse effects from medications; older adults who are frail and/or who have cognitive impairment are especially at risk. Reducing medication use, especially medications likely to cause adverse effects such as those with anticholinergic properties, has the potential to yield beneficial effects while reducing the burden of taking medications. A large randomized trial found that a pharmacist-led education intervention can be effective in reducing PIM use in community-dwelling older adults,² and that targeting patient motivation and capacity to deprescribe could be effective.³ This study by Bayliss and colleagues (Study 1), however, fell short of the effects seen in the earlier D-PRESCRIBE trial. One of the reasons for these findings may be that the clinician portion of the intervention was less intensive than that used in the earlier trial; specifically, in the present study, clinicians were not provided with or expected to utilize tools for structured medication review or deprescribing. Although the intervention primes the patient and family for discussions around deprescribing through the use of a brochure and questionnaire, the clinician portion of the intervention was less structured. Another example of an effective intervention that provided a more structured deprescribing intervention beyond education of clinicians utilized electronic decision-support to assist with deprescribing.⁴

The findings from the Gedde et al study (Study 2) are comparable to those of prior studies in the nursing home population,⁵ where participants are likely to take a large number of medications, including psychotropic medications, and are more likely to be frail. However, Gedde and colleagues employed a bundled intervention⁶ that included other components besides medication review, and thus it is unclear whether the effect on ADL can be attributed to the deprescribing of medications alone. Gedde et al’s finding that deprescribing can reduce the use of psychotropic medications while not leading to differences in behavioral and psychologic symptoms or depression is an important contribution to our knowledge about polypharmacy and deprescribing in older patients. Thus, nursing home residents, their families, and clinicians could expect that the deprescribing of psychotropic medications does not lead to worsening symptoms. Of note, the clinician portion of the intervention in the Gedde et al study was quite structured, and this structure may have contributed to the observed effects.

Applications for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

Both studies add to the literature on deprescribing and may offer options for researchers and clinicians who are considering potential components of an effective deprescribing intervention. Patient activation for deprescribing via the methods used in these 2 studies may help to prime patients for conversations about deprescribing; however, as shown by the Bayliss et al study, a more structured approach to clinical encounters may be needed when deprescribing, such as the use of tools in the electronic health record, in order to reduce the use of medication deemed unnecessary or potentially harmful. Further studies should examine the effect of deprescribing on medication use, but perhaps even more importantly, how deprescribing impacts patient outcomes both in terms of risks and benefits.

Practice Points

• A more structured approach to clinical encounters (eg, the use of tools in the electronic health record) may be needed when deprescribing unnecessary or potentially harmful medications in older patients in community settings.
• In the nursing home setting, structured deprescribing intervention can reduce the use of psychotropic medications while not leading to differences in behavioral and psychologic symptoms or depression.

–William W. Hung, MD, MPH