Megan Brooks

With the approval of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies to treat early-stage Alzheimer’s disease, the need for accurate and early diagnosis is crucial.

Blood-based biomarkers offer a promising alternative to amyloid PET scans and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis and are being increasingly used in clinical practice to support an Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis.

Recently, an expert workgroup convened by the Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer’s Disease published recommendations for the clinical implementation of Alzheimer’s disease blood-based biomarkers.

“Our hope was to provide some recommendations that clinicians could use to develop the best pathways for their clinical practice,” said workgroup co-chair Michelle M. Mielke, PhD, with Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
 

Triage and Confirmatory Pathways

The group recommends two implementation pathways for Alzheimer’s disease blood biomarkers — one for current use for triaging and another for future use to confirm amyloid pathology once blood biomarker tests have reached sufficient performance for this purpose.

In the triage pathway, a negative blood biomarker test would flag individuals unlikely to have detectable brain amyloid pathology. This outcome would prompt clinicians to focus on evaluating non–Alzheimer’s disease-related causes of cognitive impairment, which may streamline the diagnosis of other causes of cognitive impairment, the authors said.

A positive triage blood test would suggest a higher likelihood of amyloid pathology and prompt referral to secondary care for further assessment and consideration for a second, more accurate test, such as amyloid PET or CSF for amyloid confirmation.

In the confirmatory pathway, a positive blood biomarker test result would identify amyloid pathology without the need for a second test, providing a faster route to diagnosis, the authors noted.

Mielke emphasized that these recommendations represent a “first step” and will need to be updated as experiences with the Alzheimer’s disease blood biomarkers in clinical care increase and additional barriers and facilitators are identified.

“These updates will likely include community-informed approaches that incorporate feedback from patients as well as healthcare providers, alongside results from validation in diverse real-world settings,” said workgroup co-chair Chi Udeh-Momoh, PhD, MSc, with Wake Forest University School of Medicine and the Brain and Mind Institute, Aga Khan University, Nairobi, Kenya.

The Alzheimer’s Association published “appropriate use” recommendations for blood biomarkers in 2022.

“Currently, the Alzheimer’s Association is building an updated library of clinical guidance that distills the scientific evidence using de novo systematic reviews and translates them into clear and actionable recommendations for clinical practice,” said Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, vice president of scientific engagement, Alzheimer’s Association.

“The first major effort with our new process will be the upcoming Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guideline on the Use of Blood-based Biomarkers (BBMs) in Specialty Care Settings. This guideline’s recommendations will be published in early 2025,” Edelmayer said.
 

Availability and Accuracy

Research has shown that amyloid beta and tau protein blood biomarkers — especially a high plasma phosphorylated (p)–tau217 levels — are highly accurate in identifying Alzheimer’s disease in patients with cognitive symptoms attending primary and secondary care clinics.

Several tests targeting plasma p-tau217 are now available for use. They include the PrecivityAD2 blood test from C2N Diagnostics and the Simoa p-Tau 217 Planar Kit and LucentAD p-Tau 217 — both from Quanterix.

In a recent head-to-head comparison of seven leading blood tests for AD pathology, measures of plasma p-tau217, either individually or in combination with other plasma biomarkers, had the strongest relationships with Alzheimer’s disease outcomes.

A recent Swedish study showed that the PrecivityAD2 test had an accuracy of 91% for correctly classifying clinical, biomarker-verified Alzheimer’s disease.

“We’ve been using these blood biomarkers in research for a long time and we’re now taking the jump to start using them in clinic to risk stratify patients,” said Fanny Elahi, MD, PhD, director of fluid biomarker research for the Barbara and Maurice Deane Center for Wellness and Cognitive Health at Icahn Mount Sinai in New York City.

New York’s Mount Sinai Health System is among the first in the northeast to offer blood tests across primary and specialty care settings for early diagnosis of AD and related dementias.

Edelmayer cautioned, “There is no single, stand-alone test to diagnose Alzheimer’s disease today. Blood testing is one piece of the diagnostic process.”

“Currently, physicians use well-established diagnostic tools combined with medical history and other information, including neurological exams, cognitive and functional assessments as well as brain imaging and spinal fluid analysis and blood to make an accurate diagnosis and to understand which patients are eligible for approved treatments,” she said.

There are also emerging biomarkers in the research pipeline, Edelmayer said.

“For example, some researchers think retinal imaging has the potential to detect biological signs of Alzheimer’s disease within certain areas of the eye,” she explained.

“Other emerging biomarkers include examining components in saliva and the skin for signals that may indicate early biological changes in the brain. These biomarkers are still very exploratory, and more research is needed before these tests or biomarkers can be used more routinely to study risk or aid in diagnosis,” Edelmayer said.
 

Ideal Candidates for Alzheimer’s Disease Blood Testing?

Experts agree that blood tests represent a convenient and scalable option to address the anticipated surge in demand for biomarker testing with the availability of disease-modifying treatments. For now, however, they are not for all older adults worried about their memory.

“Current practice should focus on using these blood biomarkers in individuals with cognitive impairment rather than in those with normal cognition or subjective cognitive decline until further research demonstrates effective interventions for individuals considered cognitively normal with elevated levels of amyloid,” the authors of a recent JAMA editorial noted.

At Mount Sinai, “we’re not starting with stone-cold asymptomatic individuals. But ultimately, this is what the blood tests are intended for — screening,” Elahi noted.

She also noted that Mount Sinai has a “very diverse population” — some with young onset cognitive symptoms, so the entry criteria for testing are “very wide.”

“Anyone above age 40 with symptoms can qualify to get a blood test. We do ask at this stage that either the individual report symptoms or someone in their life or their clinician be worried about their cognition or their brain function,” Elahi said.
 

Ethical Considerations, Counseling

Elahi emphasized the importance of counseling patients who come to the clinic seeking an Alzheimer’s disease blood test. This should include how the diagnostic process will unfold and what the next steps are with a given result.

Elahi said patients need to be informed that Alzheimer’s disease blood biomarkers are still “relatively new,” and a test can help a patient “know the likelihood of having the disease, but it won’t be 100% definitive.”

To ensure the ethical principle of “do no harm,” counseling should ensure that patients are fully prepared for the implications of the test results and ensure that the decision to test aligns with the patient’s readiness and well-being, Elahi said.

Edelmayer said the forthcoming clinical practice guidelines will provide “evidence-based recommendations for physicians to help guide them through the decision-making process around who should be tested and when. In the meantime, the Alzheimer’s Association urges providers to refer to the 2022 appropriate use recommendations for blood tests in clinical practice and trial settings.”

Mielke has served on scientific advisory boards and/or having consulted for Acadia, Biogen, Eisai, LabCorp, Lilly, Merck, PeerView Institute, Roche, Siemens Healthineers, and Sunbird Bio. Edelmayer and Elahi had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With the approval of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies to treat early-stage Alzheimer’s disease, the need for accurate and early diagnosis is crucial.

Blood-based biomarkers offer a promising alternative to amyloid PET scans and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis and are being increasingly used in clinical practice to support an Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis.

Recently, an expert workgroup convened by the Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer’s Disease published recommendations for the clinical implementation of Alzheimer’s disease blood-based biomarkers.

“Our hope was to provide some recommendations that clinicians could use to develop the best pathways for their clinical practice,” said workgroup co-chair Michelle M. Mielke, PhD, with Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
 

Triage and Confirmatory Pathways

The group recommends two implementation pathways for Alzheimer’s disease blood biomarkers — one for current use for triaging and another for future use to confirm amyloid pathology once blood biomarker tests have reached sufficient performance for this purpose.

In the triage pathway, a negative blood biomarker test would flag individuals unlikely to have detectable brain amyloid pathology. This outcome would prompt clinicians to focus on evaluating non–Alzheimer’s disease-related causes of cognitive impairment, which may streamline the diagnosis of other causes of cognitive impairment, the authors said.

A positive triage blood test would suggest a higher likelihood of amyloid pathology and prompt referral to secondary care for further assessment and consideration for a second, more accurate test, such as amyloid PET or CSF for amyloid confirmation.

In the confirmatory pathway, a positive blood biomarker test result would identify amyloid pathology without the need for a second test, providing a faster route to diagnosis, the authors noted.

Mielke emphasized that these recommendations represent a “first step” and will need to be updated as experiences with the Alzheimer’s disease blood biomarkers in clinical care increase and additional barriers and facilitators are identified.

“These updates will likely include community-informed approaches that incorporate feedback from patients as well as healthcare providers, alongside results from validation in diverse real-world settings,” said workgroup co-chair Chi Udeh-Momoh, PhD, MSc, with Wake Forest University School of Medicine and the Brain and Mind Institute, Aga Khan University, Nairobi, Kenya.

The Alzheimer’s Association published “appropriate use” recommendations for blood biomarkers in 2022.

“Currently, the Alzheimer’s Association is building an updated library of clinical guidance that distills the scientific evidence using de novo systematic reviews and translates them into clear and actionable recommendations for clinical practice,” said Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, vice president of scientific engagement, Alzheimer’s Association.

“The first major effort with our new process will be the upcoming Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guideline on the Use of Blood-based Biomarkers (BBMs) in Specialty Care Settings. This guideline’s recommendations will be published in early 2025,” Edelmayer said.
 

Availability and Accuracy

Research has shown that amyloid beta and tau protein blood biomarkers — especially a high plasma phosphorylated (p)–tau217 levels — are highly accurate in identifying Alzheimer’s disease in patients with cognitive symptoms attending primary and secondary care clinics.

Several tests targeting plasma p-tau217 are now available for use. They include the PrecivityAD2 blood test from C2N Diagnostics and the Simoa p-Tau 217 Planar Kit and LucentAD p-Tau 217 — both from Quanterix.

In a recent head-to-head comparison of seven leading blood tests for AD pathology, measures of plasma p-tau217, either individually or in combination with other plasma biomarkers, had the strongest relationships with Alzheimer’s disease outcomes.

A recent Swedish study showed that the PrecivityAD2 test had an accuracy of 91% for correctly classifying clinical, biomarker-verified Alzheimer’s disease.

“We’ve been using these blood biomarkers in research for a long time and we’re now taking the jump to start using them in clinic to risk stratify patients,” said Fanny Elahi, MD, PhD, director of fluid biomarker research for the Barbara and Maurice Deane Center for Wellness and Cognitive Health at Icahn Mount Sinai in New York City.

New York’s Mount Sinai Health System is among the first in the northeast to offer blood tests across primary and specialty care settings for early diagnosis of AD and related dementias.

Edelmayer cautioned, “There is no single, stand-alone test to diagnose Alzheimer’s disease today. Blood testing is one piece of the diagnostic process.”

“Currently, physicians use well-established diagnostic tools combined with medical history and other information, including neurological exams, cognitive and functional assessments as well as brain imaging and spinal fluid analysis and blood to make an accurate diagnosis and to understand which patients are eligible for approved treatments,” she said.

There are also emerging biomarkers in the research pipeline, Edelmayer said.

“For example, some researchers think retinal imaging has the potential to detect biological signs of Alzheimer’s disease within certain areas of the eye,” she explained.

“Other emerging biomarkers include examining components in saliva and the skin for signals that may indicate early biological changes in the brain. These biomarkers are still very exploratory, and more research is needed before these tests or biomarkers can be used more routinely to study risk or aid in diagnosis,” Edelmayer said.
 

Ideal Candidates for Alzheimer’s Disease Blood Testing?

Experts agree that blood tests represent a convenient and scalable option to address the anticipated surge in demand for biomarker testing with the availability of disease-modifying treatments. For now, however, they are not for all older adults worried about their memory.

“Current practice should focus on using these blood biomarkers in individuals with cognitive impairment rather than in those with normal cognition or subjective cognitive decline until further research demonstrates effective interventions for individuals considered cognitively normal with elevated levels of amyloid,” the authors of a recent JAMA editorial noted.

At Mount Sinai, “we’re not starting with stone-cold asymptomatic individuals. But ultimately, this is what the blood tests are intended for — screening,” Elahi noted.

She also noted that Mount Sinai has a “very diverse population” — some with young onset cognitive symptoms, so the entry criteria for testing are “very wide.”

“Anyone above age 40 with symptoms can qualify to get a blood test. We do ask at this stage that either the individual report symptoms or someone in their life or their clinician be worried about their cognition or their brain function,” Elahi said.
 

Ethical Considerations, Counseling

Elahi emphasized the importance of counseling patients who come to the clinic seeking an Alzheimer’s disease blood test. This should include how the diagnostic process will unfold and what the next steps are with a given result.

Elahi said patients need to be informed that Alzheimer’s disease blood biomarkers are still “relatively new,” and a test can help a patient “know the likelihood of having the disease, but it won’t be 100% definitive.”

To ensure the ethical principle of “do no harm,” counseling should ensure that patients are fully prepared for the implications of the test results and ensure that the decision to test aligns with the patient’s readiness and well-being, Elahi said.

Edelmayer said the forthcoming clinical practice guidelines will provide “evidence-based recommendations for physicians to help guide them through the decision-making process around who should be tested and when. In the meantime, the Alzheimer’s Association urges providers to refer to the 2022 appropriate use recommendations for blood tests in clinical practice and trial settings.”

Mielke has served on scientific advisory boards and/or having consulted for Acadia, Biogen, Eisai, LabCorp, Lilly, Merck, PeerView Institute, Roche, Siemens Healthineers, and Sunbird Bio. Edelmayer and Elahi had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With the approval of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies to treat early-stage Alzheimer’s disease, the need for accurate and early diagnosis is crucial.

Blood-based biomarkers offer a promising alternative to amyloid PET scans and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis and are being increasingly used in clinical practice to support an Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis.

Recently, an expert workgroup convened by the Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer’s Disease published recommendations for the clinical implementation of Alzheimer’s disease blood-based biomarkers.

“Our hope was to provide some recommendations that clinicians could use to develop the best pathways for their clinical practice,” said workgroup co-chair Michelle M. Mielke, PhD, with Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
 

Triage and Confirmatory Pathways

The group recommends two implementation pathways for Alzheimer’s disease blood biomarkers — one for current use for triaging and another for future use to confirm amyloid pathology once blood biomarker tests have reached sufficient performance for this purpose.

In the triage pathway, a negative blood biomarker test would flag individuals unlikely to have detectable brain amyloid pathology. This outcome would prompt clinicians to focus on evaluating non–Alzheimer’s disease-related causes of cognitive impairment, which may streamline the diagnosis of other causes of cognitive impairment, the authors said.

A positive triage blood test would suggest a higher likelihood of amyloid pathology and prompt referral to secondary care for further assessment and consideration for a second, more accurate test, such as amyloid PET or CSF for amyloid confirmation.

In the confirmatory pathway, a positive blood biomarker test result would identify amyloid pathology without the need for a second test, providing a faster route to diagnosis, the authors noted.

Mielke emphasized that these recommendations represent a “first step” and will need to be updated as experiences with the Alzheimer’s disease blood biomarkers in clinical care increase and additional barriers and facilitators are identified.

“These updates will likely include community-informed approaches that incorporate feedback from patients as well as healthcare providers, alongside results from validation in diverse real-world settings,” said workgroup co-chair Chi Udeh-Momoh, PhD, MSc, with Wake Forest University School of Medicine and the Brain and Mind Institute, Aga Khan University, Nairobi, Kenya.

The Alzheimer’s Association published “appropriate use” recommendations for blood biomarkers in 2022.

“Currently, the Alzheimer’s Association is building an updated library of clinical guidance that distills the scientific evidence using de novo systematic reviews and translates them into clear and actionable recommendations for clinical practice,” said Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, vice president of scientific engagement, Alzheimer’s Association.

“The first major effort with our new process will be the upcoming Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guideline on the Use of Blood-based Biomarkers (BBMs) in Specialty Care Settings. This guideline’s recommendations will be published in early 2025,” Edelmayer said.
 

Availability and Accuracy

Research has shown that amyloid beta and tau protein blood biomarkers — especially a high plasma phosphorylated (p)–tau217 levels — are highly accurate in identifying Alzheimer’s disease in patients with cognitive symptoms attending primary and secondary care clinics.

Several tests targeting plasma p-tau217 are now available for use. They include the PrecivityAD2 blood test from C2N Diagnostics and the Simoa p-Tau 217 Planar Kit and LucentAD p-Tau 217 — both from Quanterix.

In a recent head-to-head comparison of seven leading blood tests for AD pathology, measures of plasma p-tau217, either individually or in combination with other plasma biomarkers, had the strongest relationships with Alzheimer’s disease outcomes.

A recent Swedish study showed that the PrecivityAD2 test had an accuracy of 91% for correctly classifying clinical, biomarker-verified Alzheimer’s disease.

“We’ve been using these blood biomarkers in research for a long time and we’re now taking the jump to start using them in clinic to risk stratify patients,” said Fanny Elahi, MD, PhD, director of fluid biomarker research for the Barbara and Maurice Deane Center for Wellness and Cognitive Health at Icahn Mount Sinai in New York City.

New York’s Mount Sinai Health System is among the first in the northeast to offer blood tests across primary and specialty care settings for early diagnosis of AD and related dementias.

Edelmayer cautioned, “There is no single, stand-alone test to diagnose Alzheimer’s disease today. Blood testing is one piece of the diagnostic process.”

“Currently, physicians use well-established diagnostic tools combined with medical history and other information, including neurological exams, cognitive and functional assessments as well as brain imaging and spinal fluid analysis and blood to make an accurate diagnosis and to understand which patients are eligible for approved treatments,” she said.

There are also emerging biomarkers in the research pipeline, Edelmayer said.

“For example, some researchers think retinal imaging has the potential to detect biological signs of Alzheimer’s disease within certain areas of the eye,” she explained.

“Other emerging biomarkers include examining components in saliva and the skin for signals that may indicate early biological changes in the brain. These biomarkers are still very exploratory, and more research is needed before these tests or biomarkers can be used more routinely to study risk or aid in diagnosis,” Edelmayer said.
 

Ideal Candidates for Alzheimer’s Disease Blood Testing?

Experts agree that blood tests represent a convenient and scalable option to address the anticipated surge in demand for biomarker testing with the availability of disease-modifying treatments. For now, however, they are not for all older adults worried about their memory.

“Current practice should focus on using these blood biomarkers in individuals with cognitive impairment rather than in those with normal cognition or subjective cognitive decline until further research demonstrates effective interventions for individuals considered cognitively normal with elevated levels of amyloid,” the authors of a recent JAMA editorial noted.

At Mount Sinai, “we’re not starting with stone-cold asymptomatic individuals. But ultimately, this is what the blood tests are intended for — screening,” Elahi noted.

She also noted that Mount Sinai has a “very diverse population” — some with young onset cognitive symptoms, so the entry criteria for testing are “very wide.”

“Anyone above age 40 with symptoms can qualify to get a blood test. We do ask at this stage that either the individual report symptoms or someone in their life or their clinician be worried about their cognition or their brain function,” Elahi said.
 

Ethical Considerations, Counseling

Elahi emphasized the importance of counseling patients who come to the clinic seeking an Alzheimer’s disease blood test. This should include how the diagnostic process will unfold and what the next steps are with a given result.

Elahi said patients need to be informed that Alzheimer’s disease blood biomarkers are still “relatively new,” and a test can help a patient “know the likelihood of having the disease, but it won’t be 100% definitive.”

To ensure the ethical principle of “do no harm,” counseling should ensure that patients are fully prepared for the implications of the test results and ensure that the decision to test aligns with the patient’s readiness and well-being, Elahi said.

Edelmayer said the forthcoming clinical practice guidelines will provide “evidence-based recommendations for physicians to help guide them through the decision-making process around who should be tested and when. In the meantime, the Alzheimer’s Association urges providers to refer to the 2022 appropriate use recommendations for blood tests in clinical practice and trial settings.”

Mielke has served on scientific advisory boards and/or having consulted for Acadia, Biogen, Eisai, LabCorp, Lilly, Merck, PeerView Institute, Roche, Siemens Healthineers, and Sunbird Bio. Edelmayer and Elahi had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved foscarbidopa and foslevodopa (Vyalev, AbbVie), a solution of carbidopa and levodopa prodrugs for 24-hour continuous subcutaneous infusion, for the treatment of motor fluctuations in adults with advanced Parkinson’s disease. 

Due to the progressive nature of Parkinson’s disease, “oral medications are eventually no longer as effective at motor symptom control and surgical treatment may be required. This new, non-surgical regimen provides continuous delivery of levodopa morning, day, and night,” Robert A. Hauser, MD, MBA, director of the Parkinson’s and Movement Disorder Center at the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in a news release. 

The FDA approval was supported by results of a 12-week, phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy of continuous subcutaneous infusion foscarbidopa/foslevodopa in adults with advanced Parkinson’s disease compared with oral immediate-release carbidopa/levodopa. 

The study showed that patients treated with foscarbidopa/foslevodopa had superior improvement in motor fluctuations, with increased “on” time without troublesome dyskinesia and decreased “off” time, compared with peers receiving oral immediate-release carbidopa/levodopa.

At week 12, the increase in “on” time without troublesome dyskinesia was 2.72 hours for foscarbidopa/foslevodopa continuous infusion versus 0.97 hours for carbidopa/levodopa (P =.0083). 

Improvements in “on” time were observed as early as the first week and persisted throughout the 12 weeks.

The approval of foscarbidopa/foslevodopa for advanced Parkinson’s disease was also supported by a 52-week, open-label study which evaluated the long-term safety and efficacy of the drug.

Most adverse reactions with foscarbidopa/foslevodopa were non-serious and mild or moderate in severity. The most frequent adverse reactions were infusion site events, hallucinations, and dyskinesia.

Full prescribing information is available online. 

AbbVie said coverage for Medicare patients is expected in the second half of 2025.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved foscarbidopa and foslevodopa (Vyalev, AbbVie), a solution of carbidopa and levodopa prodrugs for 24-hour continuous subcutaneous infusion, for the treatment of motor fluctuations in adults with advanced Parkinson’s disease. 

Due to the progressive nature of Parkinson’s disease, “oral medications are eventually no longer as effective at motor symptom control and surgical treatment may be required. This new, non-surgical regimen provides continuous delivery of levodopa morning, day, and night,” Robert A. Hauser, MD, MBA, director of the Parkinson’s and Movement Disorder Center at the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in a news release. 

The FDA approval was supported by results of a 12-week, phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy of continuous subcutaneous infusion foscarbidopa/foslevodopa in adults with advanced Parkinson’s disease compared with oral immediate-release carbidopa/levodopa. 

The study showed that patients treated with foscarbidopa/foslevodopa had superior improvement in motor fluctuations, with increased “on” time without troublesome dyskinesia and decreased “off” time, compared with peers receiving oral immediate-release carbidopa/levodopa.

At week 12, the increase in “on” time without troublesome dyskinesia was 2.72 hours for foscarbidopa/foslevodopa continuous infusion versus 0.97 hours for carbidopa/levodopa (P =.0083). 

Improvements in “on” time were observed as early as the first week and persisted throughout the 12 weeks.

The approval of foscarbidopa/foslevodopa for advanced Parkinson’s disease was also supported by a 52-week, open-label study which evaluated the long-term safety and efficacy of the drug.

Most adverse reactions with foscarbidopa/foslevodopa were non-serious and mild or moderate in severity. The most frequent adverse reactions were infusion site events, hallucinations, and dyskinesia.

Full prescribing information is available online. 

AbbVie said coverage for Medicare patients is expected in the second half of 2025.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved foscarbidopa and foslevodopa (Vyalev, AbbVie), a solution of carbidopa and levodopa prodrugs for 24-hour continuous subcutaneous infusion, for the treatment of motor fluctuations in adults with advanced Parkinson’s disease. 

Due to the progressive nature of Parkinson’s disease, “oral medications are eventually no longer as effective at motor symptom control and surgical treatment may be required. This new, non-surgical regimen provides continuous delivery of levodopa morning, day, and night,” Robert A. Hauser, MD, MBA, director of the Parkinson’s and Movement Disorder Center at the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in a news release. 

The FDA approval was supported by results of a 12-week, phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy of continuous subcutaneous infusion foscarbidopa/foslevodopa in adults with advanced Parkinson’s disease compared with oral immediate-release carbidopa/levodopa. 

The study showed that patients treated with foscarbidopa/foslevodopa had superior improvement in motor fluctuations, with increased “on” time without troublesome dyskinesia and decreased “off” time, compared with peers receiving oral immediate-release carbidopa/levodopa.

At week 12, the increase in “on” time without troublesome dyskinesia was 2.72 hours for foscarbidopa/foslevodopa continuous infusion versus 0.97 hours for carbidopa/levodopa (P =.0083). 

Improvements in “on” time were observed as early as the first week and persisted throughout the 12 weeks.

The approval of foscarbidopa/foslevodopa for advanced Parkinson’s disease was also supported by a 52-week, open-label study which evaluated the long-term safety and efficacy of the drug.

Most adverse reactions with foscarbidopa/foslevodopa were non-serious and mild or moderate in severity. The most frequent adverse reactions were infusion site events, hallucinations, and dyskinesia.

Full prescribing information is available online. 

AbbVie said coverage for Medicare patients is expected in the second half of 2025.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study provides more evidence that glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) used to treat diabetes and obesity could be repurposed for opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD).

Researchers found that patients with OUD or AUD who were taking semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) or similar medications for diabetes or weight-related conditions had a 40% lower rate of opioid overdose and a 50% lower rate of alcohol intoxication than their peers with OUD or AUD who were not taking these medications.

Their real-world study of more than 1 million adults with a history of OUD or AUD provide “foundational” estimates of the association between glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 RA prescriptions and opioid overdose/alcohol intoxication “and introduce the idea that GLP-1 RA and other related drugs should be investigated as a novel pharmacotherapy treatment option for individuals with OUD or AUD,” wrote the investigators, led by Fares Qeadan, PhD, Parkinson School of Health Sciences and Public Health, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Illinois.

The study was published online in the journal Addiction.
 

Protective Effect?

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, earlier studies have pointed to a link between weight loss drugs and reduced overdose risk in people with OUD and decreased alcohol intake in people with AUD.

Until now, most studies on GLP-1 RAs and GIP agonists like tirzepatide (Mounjaro) to treat substance use disorders consisted of animal studies and small-scale clinical trials, investigators noted.

This new retrospective cohort study analyzed de-identified electronic health record data from the Oracle Health Real-World Data.

Participants, all aged 18 years or older, included 503,747 patients with a history of OUD, of whom 8103 had a GLP-1 RA or GIP prescription, and 817,309 patients with a history of AUD, of whom 5621 had a GLP-1 RA or GIP prescription.

Patients with OUD who were prescribed GLP-1 RAs had a 40% lower rate of opioid overdose than those without such prescriptions (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.83), the study team found.

In addition, patients with AUD and a GLP-1 RA prescription exhibited a 50% lower rate of alcohol intoxication (aIRR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.40-0.63).

The protective effect of GLP-1 RA on opioid overdose and alcohol intoxication was maintained across patients with comorbid conditions, such as type 2 diabetes and obesity.

“Future research should focus on prospective clinical trials to validate these findings, explore the underlying mechanisms, and determine the long-term efficacy and safety of GIP/GLP-1 RA medications in diverse populations,” Qeadan and colleagues concluded.

“Additionally, the study highlights the importance of interdisciplinary research in understanding the neurobiological links between metabolic disorders and problematic substance use, potentially leading to more effective treatment strategies within healthcare systems,” they added.
 

Questions Remain

In a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre, Matt Field, DPhil, professor of psychology, The University of Sheffield, in England, noted that the findings “add to those from other studies, particularly animal research, which suggest that this and similar drugs might one day be prescribed to help people with addiction.”

However, “a note of caution is that the outcomes are very extreme instances of substance intoxication,” added Field, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“Those outcomes are very different from the outcomes used when researchers test new treatments for addiction, in which case we might look at whether the treatment helps people to stop taking the substance altogether (complete abstinence), or if it helps people to reduce the amount of substance they consume, or how often they consume it. Those things could not be measured in this study,” he continued.

“This leaves open the possibility that while Ozempic may — for reasons currently unknown — prevent people from taking so much alcohol or heroin that they overdose and end up in hospital, it may not actually help them to reduce their substance use, or to abstain altogether,” Field said.

The study had no specific funding. The study authors and Field declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

A new study provides more evidence that glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) used to treat diabetes and obesity could be repurposed for opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD).

Researchers found that patients with OUD or AUD who were taking semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) or similar medications for diabetes or weight-related conditions had a 40% lower rate of opioid overdose and a 50% lower rate of alcohol intoxication than their peers with OUD or AUD who were not taking these medications.

Their real-world study of more than 1 million adults with a history of OUD or AUD provide “foundational” estimates of the association between glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 RA prescriptions and opioid overdose/alcohol intoxication “and introduce the idea that GLP-1 RA and other related drugs should be investigated as a novel pharmacotherapy treatment option for individuals with OUD or AUD,” wrote the investigators, led by Fares Qeadan, PhD, Parkinson School of Health Sciences and Public Health, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Illinois.

The study was published online in the journal Addiction.
 

Protective Effect?

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, earlier studies have pointed to a link between weight loss drugs and reduced overdose risk in people with OUD and decreased alcohol intake in people with AUD.

Until now, most studies on GLP-1 RAs and GIP agonists like tirzepatide (Mounjaro) to treat substance use disorders consisted of animal studies and small-scale clinical trials, investigators noted.

This new retrospective cohort study analyzed de-identified electronic health record data from the Oracle Health Real-World Data.

Participants, all aged 18 years or older, included 503,747 patients with a history of OUD, of whom 8103 had a GLP-1 RA or GIP prescription, and 817,309 patients with a history of AUD, of whom 5621 had a GLP-1 RA or GIP prescription.

Patients with OUD who were prescribed GLP-1 RAs had a 40% lower rate of opioid overdose than those without such prescriptions (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.83), the study team found.

In addition, patients with AUD and a GLP-1 RA prescription exhibited a 50% lower rate of alcohol intoxication (aIRR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.40-0.63).

The protective effect of GLP-1 RA on opioid overdose and alcohol intoxication was maintained across patients with comorbid conditions, such as type 2 diabetes and obesity.

“Future research should focus on prospective clinical trials to validate these findings, explore the underlying mechanisms, and determine the long-term efficacy and safety of GIP/GLP-1 RA medications in diverse populations,” Qeadan and colleagues concluded.

“Additionally, the study highlights the importance of interdisciplinary research in understanding the neurobiological links between metabolic disorders and problematic substance use, potentially leading to more effective treatment strategies within healthcare systems,” they added.
 

Questions Remain

In a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre, Matt Field, DPhil, professor of psychology, The University of Sheffield, in England, noted that the findings “add to those from other studies, particularly animal research, which suggest that this and similar drugs might one day be prescribed to help people with addiction.”

However, “a note of caution is that the outcomes are very extreme instances of substance intoxication,” added Field, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“Those outcomes are very different from the outcomes used when researchers test new treatments for addiction, in which case we might look at whether the treatment helps people to stop taking the substance altogether (complete abstinence), or if it helps people to reduce the amount of substance they consume, or how often they consume it. Those things could not be measured in this study,” he continued.

“This leaves open the possibility that while Ozempic may — for reasons currently unknown — prevent people from taking so much alcohol or heroin that they overdose and end up in hospital, it may not actually help them to reduce their substance use, or to abstain altogether,” Field said.

The study had no specific funding. The study authors and Field declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

A new study provides more evidence that glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) used to treat diabetes and obesity could be repurposed for opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD).

Researchers found that patients with OUD or AUD who were taking semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) or similar medications for diabetes or weight-related conditions had a 40% lower rate of opioid overdose and a 50% lower rate of alcohol intoxication than their peers with OUD or AUD who were not taking these medications.

Their real-world study of more than 1 million adults with a history of OUD or AUD provide “foundational” estimates of the association between glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 RA prescriptions and opioid overdose/alcohol intoxication “and introduce the idea that GLP-1 RA and other related drugs should be investigated as a novel pharmacotherapy treatment option for individuals with OUD or AUD,” wrote the investigators, led by Fares Qeadan, PhD, Parkinson School of Health Sciences and Public Health, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Illinois.

The study was published online in the journal Addiction.
 

Protective Effect?

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, earlier studies have pointed to a link between weight loss drugs and reduced overdose risk in people with OUD and decreased alcohol intake in people with AUD.

Until now, most studies on GLP-1 RAs and GIP agonists like tirzepatide (Mounjaro) to treat substance use disorders consisted of animal studies and small-scale clinical trials, investigators noted.

This new retrospective cohort study analyzed de-identified electronic health record data from the Oracle Health Real-World Data.

Participants, all aged 18 years or older, included 503,747 patients with a history of OUD, of whom 8103 had a GLP-1 RA or GIP prescription, and 817,309 patients with a history of AUD, of whom 5621 had a GLP-1 RA or GIP prescription.

Patients with OUD who were prescribed GLP-1 RAs had a 40% lower rate of opioid overdose than those without such prescriptions (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.83), the study team found.

In addition, patients with AUD and a GLP-1 RA prescription exhibited a 50% lower rate of alcohol intoxication (aIRR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.40-0.63).

The protective effect of GLP-1 RA on opioid overdose and alcohol intoxication was maintained across patients with comorbid conditions, such as type 2 diabetes and obesity.

“Future research should focus on prospective clinical trials to validate these findings, explore the underlying mechanisms, and determine the long-term efficacy and safety of GIP/GLP-1 RA medications in diverse populations,” Qeadan and colleagues concluded.

“Additionally, the study highlights the importance of interdisciplinary research in understanding the neurobiological links between metabolic disorders and problematic substance use, potentially leading to more effective treatment strategies within healthcare systems,” they added.
 

Questions Remain

In a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre, Matt Field, DPhil, professor of psychology, The University of Sheffield, in England, noted that the findings “add to those from other studies, particularly animal research, which suggest that this and similar drugs might one day be prescribed to help people with addiction.”

However, “a note of caution is that the outcomes are very extreme instances of substance intoxication,” added Field, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“Those outcomes are very different from the outcomes used when researchers test new treatments for addiction, in which case we might look at whether the treatment helps people to stop taking the substance altogether (complete abstinence), or if it helps people to reduce the amount of substance they consume, or how often they consume it. Those things could not be measured in this study,” he continued.

“This leaves open the possibility that while Ozempic may — for reasons currently unknown — prevent people from taking so much alcohol or heroin that they overdose and end up in hospital, it may not actually help them to reduce their substance use, or to abstain altogether,” Field said.

The study had no specific funding. The study authors and Field declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

TOPLINE:

VIENNA — Individuals with ulcerative colitis (UC) who carry the HLA-DRB1*01:03 allele are at increased risk of having a more severe disease course requiring major surgery, hospitalization, and high-dose systemic corticosteroids within 3 years of diagnosis, according to a Danish study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Reliable biomarkers are lacking to identify patients with inflammatory bowel disease at greater risk for severe disease and who therefore might require intensified monitoring and treatment.
• Researchers explored genetic variants associated with severe UC in patients from two Danish cohorts, whose DNA was extracted from dried blood spots and full blood, with genotyping then performed to assess the presence of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) alleles and single-nucleotide variants.
• Severe UC was defined as having at least one major UC-related operation, at least two UC-related hospitalizations exceeding 2 days, and/or use of at least 5000 mg of systemic corticosteroids within 3 years of diagnosis. Patients not meeting these criteria were considered to have less severe UC and included as the comparison group.
• A genome-wide association study was conducted comparing severe vs less severe UC.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers analyzed 4491 patients with UC (mean age at diagnosis, 23 years; 53% women; 27% with severe UC) and determined that carriers of the HLA-DRB1*01:03 allele had a significantly higher risk for severe UC (odds ratio, 3.32).
• Compared with noncarriers, those with this allele had an approximately sixfold increased risk of needing major surgery, a fivefold increased risk of requiring at least two hospitalizations, and a twofold increased risk for use of over 5000 mg of systemic corticosteroids within 3 years of diagnosis.
• Time-to-event analysis showed that the association between carriers and disease severity extended beyond 3 years after diagnosis.
• Compared with noncarriers, those with the HLA-DRB1*01:03 allele had a higher hazard ratio for time to hospitalization, major surgery, and first treatment with systemic corticosteroids.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although HLA-DRB1*01:03 is a low-frequency allele, carriers have a significantly higher risk of severe ulcerative colitis. Given the low cost of typing a single HLA allele, HLA-DRB1*01:03 could be a valuable tool for risk assessment of patients with ulcerative colitis at diagnosis,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Marie Vibeke Vestergaard, MSc, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark, was published online on October 15 in JAMA, to coincide with its presentation at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024 in Vienna, Austria. 

LIMITATIONS:

The findings are based on a Danish population of European genetic ancestry and require validation in diverse patient cohorts with UC.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish National Research Foundation, the Lundbeck Foundation, and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. The authors reported no relevant disclosures related to the study.
 

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

TOPLINE:

VIENNA — Individuals with ulcerative colitis (UC) who carry the HLA-DRB1*01:03 allele are at increased risk of having a more severe disease course requiring major surgery, hospitalization, and high-dose systemic corticosteroids within 3 years of diagnosis, according to a Danish study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Reliable biomarkers are lacking to identify patients with inflammatory bowel disease at greater risk for severe disease and who therefore might require intensified monitoring and treatment.
• Researchers explored genetic variants associated with severe UC in patients from two Danish cohorts, whose DNA was extracted from dried blood spots and full blood, with genotyping then performed to assess the presence of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) alleles and single-nucleotide variants.
• Severe UC was defined as having at least one major UC-related operation, at least two UC-related hospitalizations exceeding 2 days, and/or use of at least 5000 mg of systemic corticosteroids within 3 years of diagnosis. Patients not meeting these criteria were considered to have less severe UC and included as the comparison group.
• A genome-wide association study was conducted comparing severe vs less severe UC.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers analyzed 4491 patients with UC (mean age at diagnosis, 23 years; 53% women; 27% with severe UC) and determined that carriers of the HLA-DRB1*01:03 allele had a significantly higher risk for severe UC (odds ratio, 3.32).
• Compared with noncarriers, those with this allele had an approximately sixfold increased risk of needing major surgery, a fivefold increased risk of requiring at least two hospitalizations, and a twofold increased risk for use of over 5000 mg of systemic corticosteroids within 3 years of diagnosis.
• Time-to-event analysis showed that the association between carriers and disease severity extended beyond 3 years after diagnosis.
• Compared with noncarriers, those with the HLA-DRB1*01:03 allele had a higher hazard ratio for time to hospitalization, major surgery, and first treatment with systemic corticosteroids.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although HLA-DRB1*01:03 is a low-frequency allele, carriers have a significantly higher risk of severe ulcerative colitis. Given the low cost of typing a single HLA allele, HLA-DRB1*01:03 could be a valuable tool for risk assessment of patients with ulcerative colitis at diagnosis,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Marie Vibeke Vestergaard, MSc, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark, was published online on October 15 in JAMA, to coincide with its presentation at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024 in Vienna, Austria. 

LIMITATIONS:

The findings are based on a Danish population of European genetic ancestry and require validation in diverse patient cohorts with UC.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish National Research Foundation, the Lundbeck Foundation, and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. The authors reported no relevant disclosures related to the study.
 

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

TOPLINE:

VIENNA — Individuals with ulcerative colitis (UC) who carry the HLA-DRB1*01:03 allele are at increased risk of having a more severe disease course requiring major surgery, hospitalization, and high-dose systemic corticosteroids within 3 years of diagnosis, according to a Danish study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Reliable biomarkers are lacking to identify patients with inflammatory bowel disease at greater risk for severe disease and who therefore might require intensified monitoring and treatment.
• Researchers explored genetic variants associated with severe UC in patients from two Danish cohorts, whose DNA was extracted from dried blood spots and full blood, with genotyping then performed to assess the presence of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) alleles and single-nucleotide variants.
• Severe UC was defined as having at least one major UC-related operation, at least two UC-related hospitalizations exceeding 2 days, and/or use of at least 5000 mg of systemic corticosteroids within 3 years of diagnosis. Patients not meeting these criteria were considered to have less severe UC and included as the comparison group.
• A genome-wide association study was conducted comparing severe vs less severe UC.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers analyzed 4491 patients with UC (mean age at diagnosis, 23 years; 53% women; 27% with severe UC) and determined that carriers of the HLA-DRB1*01:03 allele had a significantly higher risk for severe UC (odds ratio, 3.32).
• Compared with noncarriers, those with this allele had an approximately sixfold increased risk of needing major surgery, a fivefold increased risk of requiring at least two hospitalizations, and a twofold increased risk for use of over 5000 mg of systemic corticosteroids within 3 years of diagnosis.
• Time-to-event analysis showed that the association between carriers and disease severity extended beyond 3 years after diagnosis.
• Compared with noncarriers, those with the HLA-DRB1*01:03 allele had a higher hazard ratio for time to hospitalization, major surgery, and first treatment with systemic corticosteroids.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although HLA-DRB1*01:03 is a low-frequency allele, carriers have a significantly higher risk of severe ulcerative colitis. Given the low cost of typing a single HLA allele, HLA-DRB1*01:03 could be a valuable tool for risk assessment of patients with ulcerative colitis at diagnosis,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Marie Vibeke Vestergaard, MSc, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark, was published online on October 15 in JAMA, to coincide with its presentation at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024 in Vienna, Austria. 

LIMITATIONS:

The findings are based on a Danish population of European genetic ancestry and require validation in diverse patient cohorts with UC.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish National Research Foundation, the Lundbeck Foundation, and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. The authors reported no relevant disclosures related to the study.
 

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

“Death cafes” — where people gather to discuss death and dying over tea and cookies — have gained momentum in recent years offering a unique way for people to come together and discuss a topic that is often shrouded in discomfort and avoidance.

It’s estimated that there are now about 18,900 death cafes in 90 countries, with the United States hosting more than 9300 on a regular basis. This trend reflects a growing desire to break the taboo surrounding discussions of death and dying.

But these casual get-togethers may not be for everyone, and their potential benefits and harms may depend on who attends and who facilitates the discussion.

Death cafes are informal meetups where people openly discuss death and mortality in a relaxed setting. They are hosted by a facilitator, like Nancy Macke, certified end-of-life doula based in the greater Cincinnati, Ohio, area and owner of Compassionate Transitions.

“These gatherings provide a supportive environment for a wide range of people, including those with terminal diagnoses, chronic illnesses, curiosity seekers, and individuals grieving the loss of loved ones,” Macke said in an interview.
 

How Do They Work?

These free events are typically advertised on community bulletin boards and held in public spaces. Libraries are a great spot to gather because they typically allow the host to bring in snacks and beverages, Macke noted. 

She tries to host a death cafe once a month and said attendance can vary widely; some gatherings will see as few as two participants, while others draw larger groups, reflecting the varied interest levels in different times and locations, Macke said. 

When hosting a death cafe, Macke said she typically introduces herself, and then asks people to introduce themselves and share what prompted them to attend, which usually triggers a discussion.

Death cafe conversations are largely participant driven, with no set agenda, allowing people to share personal stories, beliefs, and feelings related to death, often resulting in a sense of relief or community connection. “They are not therapy sessions,” Macke said. 

In her experience, Macke has found that many people report feeling less anxious and fearful of death after attending a death cafe and express gratitude for the opportunity to talk about death and dying in a relaxed atmosphere.

Macke said death cafes may serve as a valuable adjunct to end-of-life care, helping patients and families process the emotional and psychological aspects of dying. Holding these discussions in nonclinical settings may help normalize these conversations outside of a medical context.
 

Potential Risks?

Normalizing the conversation around grief is crucial, regardless of where it takes place, Kara Rauscher, LCSW, trauma services coordinator with Nashville Cares in Tennessee, said in an interview.

“Many of the clients I’ve seen for grief counseling feel incredibly isolated in their grief. As a society, we are uncomfortable with grief and don’t always know how to hold space for people who are grieving. It is not uncommon to hear phrases like ‘move on’ or ‘just let go of it’ — but that’s just not how grief works,” Rauscher said. 

“Death cafes could be very helpful for some people but may not be helpful for others and should not be viewed as a substitute for counseling or therapy with a trained mental health provider,” Rauscher cautioned. 

Therese Rando, PhD, clinical psychologist and clinical director of The Institute for the Study & Treatment of Loss, Warwick, Rhode Island, also cautioned that death cafes have the potential to be helpful or harmful.

“Exposing ourselves to healthy death conversations and realizing that death is an inevitable part of life can help a person lead a more fulfilling life, prioritize things that are important to them, and recognize that there is not a limitless supply of tomorrows, so they need to make good choices,” Rando said in an interview.

But the benefits or harms that are realized depend on who is attending and who is facilitating these death cafes, she noted.

“It’s fine to have a group of people coming at it from an intellectual point of view, or even if they have had a loss, they might be able to address some of their existential or philosophical questions. But you could get somebody who’s really raw or on the edge or who has psychological issues, and a death cafe may not be suitable for them at that point,” said Rando, author of the book How to Go on Living When Someone You Love Dies.

“It must be recognized that for some people, casual discussions about death and dying could — although not necessarily will — exacerbate anxiety, if they are not facilitated by trained individuals,” Rando added.

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

“Death cafes” — where people gather to discuss death and dying over tea and cookies — have gained momentum in recent years offering a unique way for people to come together and discuss a topic that is often shrouded in discomfort and avoidance.

It’s estimated that there are now about 18,900 death cafes in 90 countries, with the United States hosting more than 9300 on a regular basis. This trend reflects a growing desire to break the taboo surrounding discussions of death and dying.

But these casual get-togethers may not be for everyone, and their potential benefits and harms may depend on who attends and who facilitates the discussion.

Death cafes are informal meetups where people openly discuss death and mortality in a relaxed setting. They are hosted by a facilitator, like Nancy Macke, certified end-of-life doula based in the greater Cincinnati, Ohio, area and owner of Compassionate Transitions.

“These gatherings provide a supportive environment for a wide range of people, including those with terminal diagnoses, chronic illnesses, curiosity seekers, and individuals grieving the loss of loved ones,” Macke said in an interview.
 

How Do They Work?

These free events are typically advertised on community bulletin boards and held in public spaces. Libraries are a great spot to gather because they typically allow the host to bring in snacks and beverages, Macke noted. 

She tries to host a death cafe once a month and said attendance can vary widely; some gatherings will see as few as two participants, while others draw larger groups, reflecting the varied interest levels in different times and locations, Macke said. 

When hosting a death cafe, Macke said she typically introduces herself, and then asks people to introduce themselves and share what prompted them to attend, which usually triggers a discussion.

Death cafe conversations are largely participant driven, with no set agenda, allowing people to share personal stories, beliefs, and feelings related to death, often resulting in a sense of relief or community connection. “They are not therapy sessions,” Macke said. 

In her experience, Macke has found that many people report feeling less anxious and fearful of death after attending a death cafe and express gratitude for the opportunity to talk about death and dying in a relaxed atmosphere.

Macke said death cafes may serve as a valuable adjunct to end-of-life care, helping patients and families process the emotional and psychological aspects of dying. Holding these discussions in nonclinical settings may help normalize these conversations outside of a medical context.
 

Potential Risks?

Normalizing the conversation around grief is crucial, regardless of where it takes place, Kara Rauscher, LCSW, trauma services coordinator with Nashville Cares in Tennessee, said in an interview.

“Many of the clients I’ve seen for grief counseling feel incredibly isolated in their grief. As a society, we are uncomfortable with grief and don’t always know how to hold space for people who are grieving. It is not uncommon to hear phrases like ‘move on’ or ‘just let go of it’ — but that’s just not how grief works,” Rauscher said. 

“Death cafes could be very helpful for some people but may not be helpful for others and should not be viewed as a substitute for counseling or therapy with a trained mental health provider,” Rauscher cautioned. 

Therese Rando, PhD, clinical psychologist and clinical director of The Institute for the Study & Treatment of Loss, Warwick, Rhode Island, also cautioned that death cafes have the potential to be helpful or harmful.

“Exposing ourselves to healthy death conversations and realizing that death is an inevitable part of life can help a person lead a more fulfilling life, prioritize things that are important to them, and recognize that there is not a limitless supply of tomorrows, so they need to make good choices,” Rando said in an interview.

But the benefits or harms that are realized depend on who is attending and who is facilitating these death cafes, she noted.

“It’s fine to have a group of people coming at it from an intellectual point of view, or even if they have had a loss, they might be able to address some of their existential or philosophical questions. But you could get somebody who’s really raw or on the edge or who has psychological issues, and a death cafe may not be suitable for them at that point,” said Rando, author of the book How to Go on Living When Someone You Love Dies.

“It must be recognized that for some people, casual discussions about death and dying could — although not necessarily will — exacerbate anxiety, if they are not facilitated by trained individuals,” Rando added.

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

“Death cafes” — where people gather to discuss death and dying over tea and cookies — have gained momentum in recent years offering a unique way for people to come together and discuss a topic that is often shrouded in discomfort and avoidance.

It’s estimated that there are now about 18,900 death cafes in 90 countries, with the United States hosting more than 9300 on a regular basis. This trend reflects a growing desire to break the taboo surrounding discussions of death and dying.

But these casual get-togethers may not be for everyone, and their potential benefits and harms may depend on who attends and who facilitates the discussion.

Death cafes are informal meetups where people openly discuss death and mortality in a relaxed setting. They are hosted by a facilitator, like Nancy Macke, certified end-of-life doula based in the greater Cincinnati, Ohio, area and owner of Compassionate Transitions.

“These gatherings provide a supportive environment for a wide range of people, including those with terminal diagnoses, chronic illnesses, curiosity seekers, and individuals grieving the loss of loved ones,” Macke said in an interview.
 

How Do They Work?

These free events are typically advertised on community bulletin boards and held in public spaces. Libraries are a great spot to gather because they typically allow the host to bring in snacks and beverages, Macke noted. 

She tries to host a death cafe once a month and said attendance can vary widely; some gatherings will see as few as two participants, while others draw larger groups, reflecting the varied interest levels in different times and locations, Macke said. 

When hosting a death cafe, Macke said she typically introduces herself, and then asks people to introduce themselves and share what prompted them to attend, which usually triggers a discussion.

Death cafe conversations are largely participant driven, with no set agenda, allowing people to share personal stories, beliefs, and feelings related to death, often resulting in a sense of relief or community connection. “They are not therapy sessions,” Macke said. 

In her experience, Macke has found that many people report feeling less anxious and fearful of death after attending a death cafe and express gratitude for the opportunity to talk about death and dying in a relaxed atmosphere.

Macke said death cafes may serve as a valuable adjunct to end-of-life care, helping patients and families process the emotional and psychological aspects of dying. Holding these discussions in nonclinical settings may help normalize these conversations outside of a medical context.
 

Potential Risks?

Normalizing the conversation around grief is crucial, regardless of where it takes place, Kara Rauscher, LCSW, trauma services coordinator with Nashville Cares in Tennessee, said in an interview.

“Many of the clients I’ve seen for grief counseling feel incredibly isolated in their grief. As a society, we are uncomfortable with grief and don’t always know how to hold space for people who are grieving. It is not uncommon to hear phrases like ‘move on’ or ‘just let go of it’ — but that’s just not how grief works,” Rauscher said. 

“Death cafes could be very helpful for some people but may not be helpful for others and should not be viewed as a substitute for counseling or therapy with a trained mental health provider,” Rauscher cautioned. 

Therese Rando, PhD, clinical psychologist and clinical director of The Institute for the Study & Treatment of Loss, Warwick, Rhode Island, also cautioned that death cafes have the potential to be helpful or harmful.

“Exposing ourselves to healthy death conversations and realizing that death is an inevitable part of life can help a person lead a more fulfilling life, prioritize things that are important to them, and recognize that there is not a limitless supply of tomorrows, so they need to make good choices,” Rando said in an interview.

But the benefits or harms that are realized depend on who is attending and who is facilitating these death cafes, she noted.

“It’s fine to have a group of people coming at it from an intellectual point of view, or even if they have had a loss, they might be able to address some of their existential or philosophical questions. But you could get somebody who’s really raw or on the edge or who has psychological issues, and a death cafe may not be suitable for them at that point,” said Rando, author of the book How to Go on Living When Someone You Love Dies.

“It must be recognized that for some people, casual discussions about death and dying could — although not necessarily will — exacerbate anxiety, if they are not facilitated by trained individuals,” Rando added.

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

TOPLINE:

Delayed reporting of cancer diagnosis by registries probably led to the weaker-than-expected effects of screening colonoscopy in preventing colorectal cancer (CRC) observed in the NordICC trial, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• The NordICC trial randomly assigned 85,179 adults aged 55-64 years in a 1:2 ratio to receive or not receive an invitation for a single screening colonoscopy and determined the risk for CRC diagnosis and death over 10-15 years of follow-up using cancer registries. After randomization, the trial excluded 221 adults who had CRC at baseline but who did not yet appear in a cancer registry at the time of randomization.
• The trial found that CRC risk and associated mortality were lower in adults who had colonoscopy, though only modestly so, which generated considerable controversy.
• Because registration delays are a known concern with population-based cancer registries but the trial did not account for them, researchers on the current study postulated that delays might have led to an underestimation of the impact of colonoscopy on CRC risk.
• They estimated the magnitude of delayed reporting of CRC diagnosis to cancer registries by comparing the 221 exclusions with expected CRC diagnoses per year. They explored the impact that delays may have had on the results of the trial’s intention-to-screen analysis and adjusted per-protocol analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The trial’s post hoc exclusion of 221 adults who had CRC at baseline but who did not yet appear in a cancer registry at the time of randomization suggests delays of 2-3 years in registration.
• With no assumed delay in cancer registration, the 10-year reported CRC risk difference was 0.22% in intention-to-screen and 0.38% in adjusted per-protocol analyses. With a mean delay in cancer registration of 2 years, the risk difference rose to 0.44% in the intention-to-screen analysis and 0.76% in the adjusted per-protocol analysis.
• Assuming no delay in cancer registration, the number needed to invite for screening colonoscopy and number needed to undergo the procedure to prevent 1 CRC diagnosis/death were 455 and 263, respectively. These numbers decreased to 227 and 132, respectively, with a 2-year reporting delay.
• Registration delays of 1, 2, or 3 years led to an underestimated risk for CRC by 25%, 50%, and 75%, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Updated analyses ensuring complete 10- and 15-year follow-up will be crucial to derive the true reductions of CRC risk and mortality in the trial’s predefined interim and primary analysis. In the meantime, available estimates are to be interpreted with caution, as they likely severely underestimate true screening colonoscopy effects,” the authors concluded.

The lag in reporting found by the study raises questions about the time interval needed beyond the end of a study to assure its completeness, which varies across registries, wrote Chyke A. Doubeni, MD, MPH, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, and colleagues in an invited commentary. “Publication guidelines should be strengthened to ensure affirmation of completeness and quality of cancer registries used for outcomes ascertainment to minimize uncertainties.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Hermann Brenner, MD, MPH, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, was published online in JAMA Network Open, as was the invited commentary.

LIMITATIONS:

Exact quantification of and correction for registration delays were not possible.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was partially funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and German Cancer Aid. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Delayed reporting of cancer diagnosis by registries probably led to the weaker-than-expected effects of screening colonoscopy in preventing colorectal cancer (CRC) observed in the NordICC trial, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• The NordICC trial randomly assigned 85,179 adults aged 55-64 years in a 1:2 ratio to receive or not receive an invitation for a single screening colonoscopy and determined the risk for CRC diagnosis and death over 10-15 years of follow-up using cancer registries. After randomization, the trial excluded 221 adults who had CRC at baseline but who did not yet appear in a cancer registry at the time of randomization.
• The trial found that CRC risk and associated mortality were lower in adults who had colonoscopy, though only modestly so, which generated considerable controversy.
• Because registration delays are a known concern with population-based cancer registries but the trial did not account for them, researchers on the current study postulated that delays might have led to an underestimation of the impact of colonoscopy on CRC risk.
• They estimated the magnitude of delayed reporting of CRC diagnosis to cancer registries by comparing the 221 exclusions with expected CRC diagnoses per year. They explored the impact that delays may have had on the results of the trial’s intention-to-screen analysis and adjusted per-protocol analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The trial’s post hoc exclusion of 221 adults who had CRC at baseline but who did not yet appear in a cancer registry at the time of randomization suggests delays of 2-3 years in registration.
• With no assumed delay in cancer registration, the 10-year reported CRC risk difference was 0.22% in intention-to-screen and 0.38% in adjusted per-protocol analyses. With a mean delay in cancer registration of 2 years, the risk difference rose to 0.44% in the intention-to-screen analysis and 0.76% in the adjusted per-protocol analysis.
• Assuming no delay in cancer registration, the number needed to invite for screening colonoscopy and number needed to undergo the procedure to prevent 1 CRC diagnosis/death were 455 and 263, respectively. These numbers decreased to 227 and 132, respectively, with a 2-year reporting delay.
• Registration delays of 1, 2, or 3 years led to an underestimated risk for CRC by 25%, 50%, and 75%, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Updated analyses ensuring complete 10- and 15-year follow-up will be crucial to derive the true reductions of CRC risk and mortality in the trial’s predefined interim and primary analysis. In the meantime, available estimates are to be interpreted with caution, as they likely severely underestimate true screening colonoscopy effects,” the authors concluded.

The lag in reporting found by the study raises questions about the time interval needed beyond the end of a study to assure its completeness, which varies across registries, wrote Chyke A. Doubeni, MD, MPH, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, and colleagues in an invited commentary. “Publication guidelines should be strengthened to ensure affirmation of completeness and quality of cancer registries used for outcomes ascertainment to minimize uncertainties.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Hermann Brenner, MD, MPH, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, was published online in JAMA Network Open, as was the invited commentary.

LIMITATIONS:

Exact quantification of and correction for registration delays were not possible.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was partially funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and German Cancer Aid. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Delayed reporting of cancer diagnosis by registries probably led to the weaker-than-expected effects of screening colonoscopy in preventing colorectal cancer (CRC) observed in the NordICC trial, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• The NordICC trial randomly assigned 85,179 adults aged 55-64 years in a 1:2 ratio to receive or not receive an invitation for a single screening colonoscopy and determined the risk for CRC diagnosis and death over 10-15 years of follow-up using cancer registries. After randomization, the trial excluded 221 adults who had CRC at baseline but who did not yet appear in a cancer registry at the time of randomization.
• The trial found that CRC risk and associated mortality were lower in adults who had colonoscopy, though only modestly so, which generated considerable controversy.
• Because registration delays are a known concern with population-based cancer registries but the trial did not account for them, researchers on the current study postulated that delays might have led to an underestimation of the impact of colonoscopy on CRC risk.
• They estimated the magnitude of delayed reporting of CRC diagnosis to cancer registries by comparing the 221 exclusions with expected CRC diagnoses per year. They explored the impact that delays may have had on the results of the trial’s intention-to-screen analysis and adjusted per-protocol analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The trial’s post hoc exclusion of 221 adults who had CRC at baseline but who did not yet appear in a cancer registry at the time of randomization suggests delays of 2-3 years in registration.
• With no assumed delay in cancer registration, the 10-year reported CRC risk difference was 0.22% in intention-to-screen and 0.38% in adjusted per-protocol analyses. With a mean delay in cancer registration of 2 years, the risk difference rose to 0.44% in the intention-to-screen analysis and 0.76% in the adjusted per-protocol analysis.
• Assuming no delay in cancer registration, the number needed to invite for screening colonoscopy and number needed to undergo the procedure to prevent 1 CRC diagnosis/death were 455 and 263, respectively. These numbers decreased to 227 and 132, respectively, with a 2-year reporting delay.
• Registration delays of 1, 2, or 3 years led to an underestimated risk for CRC by 25%, 50%, and 75%, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Updated analyses ensuring complete 10- and 15-year follow-up will be crucial to derive the true reductions of CRC risk and mortality in the trial’s predefined interim and primary analysis. In the meantime, available estimates are to be interpreted with caution, as they likely severely underestimate true screening colonoscopy effects,” the authors concluded.

The lag in reporting found by the study raises questions about the time interval needed beyond the end of a study to assure its completeness, which varies across registries, wrote Chyke A. Doubeni, MD, MPH, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, and colleagues in an invited commentary. “Publication guidelines should be strengthened to ensure affirmation of completeness and quality of cancer registries used for outcomes ascertainment to minimize uncertainties.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Hermann Brenner, MD, MPH, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, was published online in JAMA Network Open, as was the invited commentary.

LIMITATIONS:

Exact quantification of and correction for registration delays were not possible.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was partially funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and German Cancer Aid. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Older adults at risk for dementia can be identified using mobile data obtained during a wayfinding task, a novel real-world study suggested.

During a smartphone-assisted scavenger hunt on a university campus, researchers observed that older adults with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) paused more frequently, likely to reorient themselves, than those without SCD. This behavior served as an identifier of individuals with SCD.

“Deficits in spatial navigation are one of the first signs of Alzheimer’s disease,” said study investigator Nadine Diersch, PhD, guest researcher with the German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Tübingen.

This study, said Diersch, provides “first evidence of how a digital footprint for early dementia-related cognitive decline might look like in real-world settings during a short (less than 30 minutes) and remotely performed wayfinding task.” 

The study was published online  in PLOS Digital Health.
 

Trouble With Orientation

A total of 72 men and women in their mid-20s to mid-60s participated in the study; 23 of the 48 older adults had SCD but still scored normally on neuropsychological assessments.

All study participants were instructed to independently find five buildings on the medical campus of the Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg in Germany, guided by a smartphone app developed by the study team. Their patterns of movement were tracked by GPS.

All participants had similar knowledge of the campus, and all were experienced in using smartphones. They also practiced using the app beforehand.

In most cases, participants reached the five destinations in less than half an hour. The younger participants performed better than the older ones; on average, the younger adults walked shorter distances and generally did not use the help function on the app as often as the older ones.

In the older adults, the number of orientation stops was predictive of SCD status. The adults with SCD tended to hesitate more at intersections. A decline in executive functioning might explain this finding, Diersch said.

“Intact executive functioning is an important component of efficient navigation, for example, when switching between different navigation strategies or planning a route. However, since this was the first study on that subject, more research is needed to determine the precise contribution of different cognitive processes on digital wayfinding data,” said Diersch.

With more study, “we think that such a smartphone-assisted wayfinding task, performed in the immediate surroundings, could be used as a low-threshold screening tool — for example, to stratify subjects with regard to the need of extended cognitive and clinical diagnostics in specialized care,” she added.
 

‘A Game Changer’

Commenting on the research, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, neurologist and researcher based in Miami, Florida, who wasn’t involved in the research, said the findings have the potential to “revolutionize” dementia care.

“We’ve seen smartphones transform everything from banking to dating — now they’re set to reshape brain health monitoring. This ingenious digital scavenger hunt detects cognitive decline in real-world scenarios, bypassing costly, complex tests. It’s a game changer,” said Lakhan.

“Just as we track our steps and calories, we could soon track our cognitive health with a tap. This isn’t just innovation; it’s the future of dementia prevention and care unfolding on our smartphone screens. We’re not just talking about convenience. We’re talking about catching Alzheimer’s before it catches us,” he added.

The next phase, Lakhan noted, would be to develop smartphone apps as digital therapeutics, not just to detect cognitive decline but to treat or even prevent it.

“Imagine your phone not only flagging potential issues but also providing personalized brain training exercises to keep your mind sharp and resilient against dementia,” Lakhan said.

This work was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) within the Collaborative Research Center “Neural Resources of Cognition” and a DZNE Innovation-2-Application Award. Diersch is now a full-time employee of neotiv. Lakhan had no relevant disclosures.

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

Older adults at risk for dementia can be identified using mobile data obtained during a wayfinding task, a novel real-world study suggested.

During a smartphone-assisted scavenger hunt on a university campus, researchers observed that older adults with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) paused more frequently, likely to reorient themselves, than those without SCD. This behavior served as an identifier of individuals with SCD.

“Deficits in spatial navigation are one of the first signs of Alzheimer’s disease,” said study investigator Nadine Diersch, PhD, guest researcher with the German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Tübingen.

This study, said Diersch, provides “first evidence of how a digital footprint for early dementia-related cognitive decline might look like in real-world settings during a short (less than 30 minutes) and remotely performed wayfinding task.” 

The study was published online  in PLOS Digital Health.
 

Trouble With Orientation

A total of 72 men and women in their mid-20s to mid-60s participated in the study; 23 of the 48 older adults had SCD but still scored normally on neuropsychological assessments.

All study participants were instructed to independently find five buildings on the medical campus of the Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg in Germany, guided by a smartphone app developed by the study team. Their patterns of movement were tracked by GPS.

All participants had similar knowledge of the campus, and all were experienced in using smartphones. They also practiced using the app beforehand.

In most cases, participants reached the five destinations in less than half an hour. The younger participants performed better than the older ones; on average, the younger adults walked shorter distances and generally did not use the help function on the app as often as the older ones.

In the older adults, the number of orientation stops was predictive of SCD status. The adults with SCD tended to hesitate more at intersections. A decline in executive functioning might explain this finding, Diersch said.

“Intact executive functioning is an important component of efficient navigation, for example, when switching between different navigation strategies or planning a route. However, since this was the first study on that subject, more research is needed to determine the precise contribution of different cognitive processes on digital wayfinding data,” said Diersch.

With more study, “we think that such a smartphone-assisted wayfinding task, performed in the immediate surroundings, could be used as a low-threshold screening tool — for example, to stratify subjects with regard to the need of extended cognitive and clinical diagnostics in specialized care,” she added.
 

‘A Game Changer’

Commenting on the research, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, neurologist and researcher based in Miami, Florida, who wasn’t involved in the research, said the findings have the potential to “revolutionize” dementia care.

“We’ve seen smartphones transform everything from banking to dating — now they’re set to reshape brain health monitoring. This ingenious digital scavenger hunt detects cognitive decline in real-world scenarios, bypassing costly, complex tests. It’s a game changer,” said Lakhan.

“Just as we track our steps and calories, we could soon track our cognitive health with a tap. This isn’t just innovation; it’s the future of dementia prevention and care unfolding on our smartphone screens. We’re not just talking about convenience. We’re talking about catching Alzheimer’s before it catches us,” he added.

The next phase, Lakhan noted, would be to develop smartphone apps as digital therapeutics, not just to detect cognitive decline but to treat or even prevent it.

“Imagine your phone not only flagging potential issues but also providing personalized brain training exercises to keep your mind sharp and resilient against dementia,” Lakhan said.

This work was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) within the Collaborative Research Center “Neural Resources of Cognition” and a DZNE Innovation-2-Application Award. Diersch is now a full-time employee of neotiv. Lakhan had no relevant disclosures.

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

Older adults at risk for dementia can be identified using mobile data obtained during a wayfinding task, a novel real-world study suggested.

During a smartphone-assisted scavenger hunt on a university campus, researchers observed that older adults with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) paused more frequently, likely to reorient themselves, than those without SCD. This behavior served as an identifier of individuals with SCD.

“Deficits in spatial navigation are one of the first signs of Alzheimer’s disease,” said study investigator Nadine Diersch, PhD, guest researcher with the German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Tübingen.

This study, said Diersch, provides “first evidence of how a digital footprint for early dementia-related cognitive decline might look like in real-world settings during a short (less than 30 minutes) and remotely performed wayfinding task.” 

The study was published online  in PLOS Digital Health.
 

Trouble With Orientation

A total of 72 men and women in their mid-20s to mid-60s participated in the study; 23 of the 48 older adults had SCD but still scored normally on neuropsychological assessments.

All study participants were instructed to independently find five buildings on the medical campus of the Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg in Germany, guided by a smartphone app developed by the study team. Their patterns of movement were tracked by GPS.

All participants had similar knowledge of the campus, and all were experienced in using smartphones. They also practiced using the app beforehand.

In most cases, participants reached the five destinations in less than half an hour. The younger participants performed better than the older ones; on average, the younger adults walked shorter distances and generally did not use the help function on the app as often as the older ones.

In the older adults, the number of orientation stops was predictive of SCD status. The adults with SCD tended to hesitate more at intersections. A decline in executive functioning might explain this finding, Diersch said.

“Intact executive functioning is an important component of efficient navigation, for example, when switching between different navigation strategies or planning a route. However, since this was the first study on that subject, more research is needed to determine the precise contribution of different cognitive processes on digital wayfinding data,” said Diersch.

With more study, “we think that such a smartphone-assisted wayfinding task, performed in the immediate surroundings, could be used as a low-threshold screening tool — for example, to stratify subjects with regard to the need of extended cognitive and clinical diagnostics in specialized care,” she added.
 

‘A Game Changer’

Commenting on the research, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, neurologist and researcher based in Miami, Florida, who wasn’t involved in the research, said the findings have the potential to “revolutionize” dementia care.

“We’ve seen smartphones transform everything from banking to dating — now they’re set to reshape brain health monitoring. This ingenious digital scavenger hunt detects cognitive decline in real-world scenarios, bypassing costly, complex tests. It’s a game changer,” said Lakhan.

“Just as we track our steps and calories, we could soon track our cognitive health with a tap. This isn’t just innovation; it’s the future of dementia prevention and care unfolding on our smartphone screens. We’re not just talking about convenience. We’re talking about catching Alzheimer’s before it catches us,” he added.

The next phase, Lakhan noted, would be to develop smartphone apps as digital therapeutics, not just to detect cognitive decline but to treat or even prevent it.

“Imagine your phone not only flagging potential issues but also providing personalized brain training exercises to keep your mind sharp and resilient against dementia,” Lakhan said.

This work was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) within the Collaborative Research Center “Neural Resources of Cognition” and a DZNE Innovation-2-Application Award. Diersch is now a full-time employee of neotiv. Lakhan had no relevant disclosures.

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

A first stroke in older adults is associated with substantial immediate and accelerated long-term cognitive decline, suggested a new study that underscores the need for continuous cognitive monitoring in this patient population.

Results from the study, which included 14 international cohorts of older adults, showed that stroke was associated with a significant acute decline in global cognition and a small, but significant, acceleration in the rate of cognitive decline over time.

Cognitive assessments in primary care are “crucial, especially since cognitive impairment is frequently missed or undiagnosed in hospitals,” lead author Jessica Lo, MSc, biostatistician and research associate with the Center for Healthy Brain Aging, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, told this news organization.

She suggested clinicians incorporate long-term cognitive assessments into care plans, using more sensitive neuropsychological tests in primary care to detect early signs of cognitive impairment. “Early detection would enable timely interventions to improve outcomes,” Lo said.

She also noted that poststroke care typically includes physical rehabilitation but not cognitive rehabilitation, which many rehabilitation centers aren’t equipped to provide.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Mapping Cognitive Decline Trajectory

Cognitive impairment after stroke is common, but the trajectory of cognitive decline following a first stroke, relative to prestroke cognitive function, remains unclear.

The investigators leveraged data from 14 population-based cohort studies of 20,860 adults (mean age, 73 years; 59% women) to map the trajectory of cognitive function before and after a first stroke.

The primary outcome was global cognition, defined as the standardized average of four cognitive domains (language, memory, processing speed, and executive function).

During a mean follow-up of 7.5 years, 1041 (5%) adults (mean age, 79 years) experienced a first stroke, a mean of 4.5 years after study entry.

In adjusted analyses, stroke was associated with a significant acute decline of 0.25 SD in global cognition and a “small but significant” acceleration in the rate of decline of −0.038 SD per year, the authors reported.

Stroke was also associated with acute decline in all individual cognitive domains except for memory, with effect sizes ranging from −0.17 to −0.22 SD. Poststroke declines in Mini-Mental State Examination scores (−0.36 SD) were also noted.

In terms of cognitive trajectory, the rate of decline before stroke in survivors was similar to that seen in peers who didn’t have a stroke (−0.048 and −0.049 SD per year in global cognition, respectively).

The researchers did not identify any vascular risk factors moderating cognitive decline following a stroke, consistent with prior research. However, cognitive decline was significantly more rapid in individuals without stroke, regardless of any future stroke, who had a history of diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, cardiovascular disease, depression, smoking, or were APOE4 carriers.

“Targeting modifiable vascular risk factors at an early stage may reduce the risk of stroke but also subsequent risk of stroke-related cognitive decline and cognitive impairment,” the researchers noted.
 

A ‘Major Step’ in the Right Direction

As previously reported by this news organization, in 2023 the American Heart Association (AHA) issued a statement noting that screening for cognitive impairment should be part of multidisciplinary care for stroke survivors.

Commenting for this news organization, Mitchell Elkind, MD, MS, AHA chief clinical science officer, said these new data are consistent with current AHA guidelines and statements that “support screening for cognitive and functional decline in patients both acutely and over the long term after stroke.”

Elkind noted that the 2022 guideline for intracerebral hemorrhage states that cognitive screening should occur “across the continuum of inpatient care and at intervals in the outpatient setting” and provides recommendations for cognitive therapy.

“Our 2021 scientific statement on the primary care of patients after stroke also recommends screening for both depression and cognitive impairment over both the short- and long-term,” said Elkind, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City.

“These documents recognize the fact that function and cognition can continue to decline years after stroke and that patients’ rehabilitation and support needs may therefore change over time after stroke,” Elkind added.

The authors of an accompanying commentary called it a “major step” in the right direction for the future of long-term stroke outcome assessment.

“As we develop new devices, indications, and time windows for stroke treatment, it may perhaps be wise to ensure trials steer away from simpler outcomes to more complex, granular ones,” wrote Yasmin Sadigh, MSc, and Victor Volovici, MD, PhD, with Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors and commentary writers and Elkind have declared no conflicts of interest.

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

A first stroke in older adults is associated with substantial immediate and accelerated long-term cognitive decline, suggested a new study that underscores the need for continuous cognitive monitoring in this patient population.

Results from the study, which included 14 international cohorts of older adults, showed that stroke was associated with a significant acute decline in global cognition and a small, but significant, acceleration in the rate of cognitive decline over time.

Cognitive assessments in primary care are “crucial, especially since cognitive impairment is frequently missed or undiagnosed in hospitals,” lead author Jessica Lo, MSc, biostatistician and research associate with the Center for Healthy Brain Aging, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, told this news organization.

She suggested clinicians incorporate long-term cognitive assessments into care plans, using more sensitive neuropsychological tests in primary care to detect early signs of cognitive impairment. “Early detection would enable timely interventions to improve outcomes,” Lo said.

She also noted that poststroke care typically includes physical rehabilitation but not cognitive rehabilitation, which many rehabilitation centers aren’t equipped to provide.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Mapping Cognitive Decline Trajectory

Cognitive impairment after stroke is common, but the trajectory of cognitive decline following a first stroke, relative to prestroke cognitive function, remains unclear.

The investigators leveraged data from 14 population-based cohort studies of 20,860 adults (mean age, 73 years; 59% women) to map the trajectory of cognitive function before and after a first stroke.

The primary outcome was global cognition, defined as the standardized average of four cognitive domains (language, memory, processing speed, and executive function).

During a mean follow-up of 7.5 years, 1041 (5%) adults (mean age, 79 years) experienced a first stroke, a mean of 4.5 years after study entry.

In adjusted analyses, stroke was associated with a significant acute decline of 0.25 SD in global cognition and a “small but significant” acceleration in the rate of decline of −0.038 SD per year, the authors reported.

Stroke was also associated with acute decline in all individual cognitive domains except for memory, with effect sizes ranging from −0.17 to −0.22 SD. Poststroke declines in Mini-Mental State Examination scores (−0.36 SD) were also noted.

In terms of cognitive trajectory, the rate of decline before stroke in survivors was similar to that seen in peers who didn’t have a stroke (−0.048 and −0.049 SD per year in global cognition, respectively).

The researchers did not identify any vascular risk factors moderating cognitive decline following a stroke, consistent with prior research. However, cognitive decline was significantly more rapid in individuals without stroke, regardless of any future stroke, who had a history of diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, cardiovascular disease, depression, smoking, or were APOE4 carriers.

“Targeting modifiable vascular risk factors at an early stage may reduce the risk of stroke but also subsequent risk of stroke-related cognitive decline and cognitive impairment,” the researchers noted.
 

A ‘Major Step’ in the Right Direction

As previously reported by this news organization, in 2023 the American Heart Association (AHA) issued a statement noting that screening for cognitive impairment should be part of multidisciplinary care for stroke survivors.

Commenting for this news organization, Mitchell Elkind, MD, MS, AHA chief clinical science officer, said these new data are consistent with current AHA guidelines and statements that “support screening for cognitive and functional decline in patients both acutely and over the long term after stroke.”

Elkind noted that the 2022 guideline for intracerebral hemorrhage states that cognitive screening should occur “across the continuum of inpatient care and at intervals in the outpatient setting” and provides recommendations for cognitive therapy.

“Our 2021 scientific statement on the primary care of patients after stroke also recommends screening for both depression and cognitive impairment over both the short- and long-term,” said Elkind, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City.

“These documents recognize the fact that function and cognition can continue to decline years after stroke and that patients’ rehabilitation and support needs may therefore change over time after stroke,” Elkind added.

The authors of an accompanying commentary called it a “major step” in the right direction for the future of long-term stroke outcome assessment.

“As we develop new devices, indications, and time windows for stroke treatment, it may perhaps be wise to ensure trials steer away from simpler outcomes to more complex, granular ones,” wrote Yasmin Sadigh, MSc, and Victor Volovici, MD, PhD, with Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors and commentary writers and Elkind have declared no conflicts of interest.

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

A first stroke in older adults is associated with substantial immediate and accelerated long-term cognitive decline, suggested a new study that underscores the need for continuous cognitive monitoring in this patient population.

Results from the study, which included 14 international cohorts of older adults, showed that stroke was associated with a significant acute decline in global cognition and a small, but significant, acceleration in the rate of cognitive decline over time.

Cognitive assessments in primary care are “crucial, especially since cognitive impairment is frequently missed or undiagnosed in hospitals,” lead author Jessica Lo, MSc, biostatistician and research associate with the Center for Healthy Brain Aging, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, told this news organization.

She suggested clinicians incorporate long-term cognitive assessments into care plans, using more sensitive neuropsychological tests in primary care to detect early signs of cognitive impairment. “Early detection would enable timely interventions to improve outcomes,” Lo said.

She also noted that poststroke care typically includes physical rehabilitation but not cognitive rehabilitation, which many rehabilitation centers aren’t equipped to provide.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Mapping Cognitive Decline Trajectory

Cognitive impairment after stroke is common, but the trajectory of cognitive decline following a first stroke, relative to prestroke cognitive function, remains unclear.

The investigators leveraged data from 14 population-based cohort studies of 20,860 adults (mean age, 73 years; 59% women) to map the trajectory of cognitive function before and after a first stroke.

The primary outcome was global cognition, defined as the standardized average of four cognitive domains (language, memory, processing speed, and executive function).

During a mean follow-up of 7.5 years, 1041 (5%) adults (mean age, 79 years) experienced a first stroke, a mean of 4.5 years after study entry.

In adjusted analyses, stroke was associated with a significant acute decline of 0.25 SD in global cognition and a “small but significant” acceleration in the rate of decline of −0.038 SD per year, the authors reported.

Stroke was also associated with acute decline in all individual cognitive domains except for memory, with effect sizes ranging from −0.17 to −0.22 SD. Poststroke declines in Mini-Mental State Examination scores (−0.36 SD) were also noted.

In terms of cognitive trajectory, the rate of decline before stroke in survivors was similar to that seen in peers who didn’t have a stroke (−0.048 and −0.049 SD per year in global cognition, respectively).

The researchers did not identify any vascular risk factors moderating cognitive decline following a stroke, consistent with prior research. However, cognitive decline was significantly more rapid in individuals without stroke, regardless of any future stroke, who had a history of diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, cardiovascular disease, depression, smoking, or were APOE4 carriers.

“Targeting modifiable vascular risk factors at an early stage may reduce the risk of stroke but also subsequent risk of stroke-related cognitive decline and cognitive impairment,” the researchers noted.
 

A ‘Major Step’ in the Right Direction

As previously reported by this news organization, in 2023 the American Heart Association (AHA) issued a statement noting that screening for cognitive impairment should be part of multidisciplinary care for stroke survivors.

Commenting for this news organization, Mitchell Elkind, MD, MS, AHA chief clinical science officer, said these new data are consistent with current AHA guidelines and statements that “support screening for cognitive and functional decline in patients both acutely and over the long term after stroke.”

Elkind noted that the 2022 guideline for intracerebral hemorrhage states that cognitive screening should occur “across the continuum of inpatient care and at intervals in the outpatient setting” and provides recommendations for cognitive therapy.

“Our 2021 scientific statement on the primary care of patients after stroke also recommends screening for both depression and cognitive impairment over both the short- and long-term,” said Elkind, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City.

“These documents recognize the fact that function and cognition can continue to decline years after stroke and that patients’ rehabilitation and support needs may therefore change over time after stroke,” Elkind added.

The authors of an accompanying commentary called it a “major step” in the right direction for the future of long-term stroke outcome assessment.

“As we develop new devices, indications, and time windows for stroke treatment, it may perhaps be wise to ensure trials steer away from simpler outcomes to more complex, granular ones,” wrote Yasmin Sadigh, MSc, and Victor Volovici, MD, PhD, with Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors and commentary writers and Elkind have declared no conflicts of interest.

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

WASHINGTON — Combining short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with high-dose radiotherapy improves disease-free survival in men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer, compared with high-dose radiotherapy alone, according to results of the phase 3 GETUG 14 trial.

The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 84% in patients who received short-term ADT plus radiotherapy, compared with 76% in those who received radiotherapy alone.

In addition, short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy didn’t increase genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicities, said Nicolas Demogeot, MD, with the Cancer Institute of Lorraine, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France, who presented the results at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

Adding short-term ADT to standard-dose radiotherapy has been shown to improve all clinical outcomes, Dr. Demogeot noted, but few trials have tested it with high-dose radiotherapy. GETUG 14 was designed to do just that.

The multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial enrolled 376 patients with intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer who had PSA levels under 30 ng/mL and no clinical involvement of the seminal vesicles.

Patients were randomly allocated to high-dose radiotherapy (80 Gy) alone or high-dose radiotherapy plus monthly triptorelin and daily flutamide for a total duration of 4 months, starting 2 months prior to radiotherapy.

Disease-free survival was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, biochemical failure, metastasis failure, toxicity, and quality of life.

The modified intention-to-treat cohort included 191 patients in the radiotherapy-only group and 179 in the short-term ADT plus radiotherapy group. The two groups were well balanced. In both, patients ranged in age from 64 to 73 years; about two thirds had intermediate-risk disease; 70% received three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, and 30% received intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

Overall, adding short-term ADT to high-dose radiotherapy was associated with a 36% relative improvement in 5-year disease-free survival (84% vs 76% with radiotherapy alone, hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; P = .02).

In subgroup analyses, intermediate-risk patients who received short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy demonstrated a significant improvement in disease-free survival (87% vs 74% with radiotherapy alone; HR, 0.55; P = .02). However, there was no significant disease-free survival benefit with short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy in high-risk patients (79% vs 75%; HR, 0.76; P = .40).

On multivariable analysis, short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy was associated with significant disease-free survival benefits (HR, 0.66; P = .038).

Patients who received short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy were significantly less likely to experience biochemical failure (10% vs 21%; HR, 0.45; P = .001), but there was no significant difference in metastasis failure (HR, 0.5; P = .09) or overall survival (HR, 1.22; P = .54).

As for adverse events, the two groups did not demonstrate significant differences in the proportions of early or late grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicities.

Patients in the short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy group did experience a greater frequency of early grade 2 or higher erectile dysfunction (31% vs 6%; P < .001), but not late grade 2 or higher erectile dysfunction (63% vs 61%; P = .89).

Limitations of the study include a low power to detect differences between intermediate- and high-risk patients and the short follow-up period.

The GETUG 14 trial “confirms that short-term ADT improves disease-free survival when combined with dose-escalated radiation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer,” Mark A. Hallman, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “However, there was not a similar benefit among the smaller subpopulation with high-risk disease.”

Outside expert Amar Kishan, MD, radiation oncologist, UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, agreed, adding that “it is also reassuring to see no increase in genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicity and no longer-term impact on erectile dysfunction.”

The GETUG-14 trial was supported by the French Ministry of Health and Ipsen. Dr. Demogeot has disclosed relationships with Ipsen, Janssen, Accord Healthcare, Astellas, and Bayer. Dr. Hallman had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Kishan has disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Janssen, Varian Medical Systems, ViewRay, and POINT Biopharma.

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

WASHINGTON — Combining short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with high-dose radiotherapy improves disease-free survival in men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer, compared with high-dose radiotherapy alone, according to results of the phase 3 GETUG 14 trial.

The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 84% in patients who received short-term ADT plus radiotherapy, compared with 76% in those who received radiotherapy alone.

In addition, short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy didn’t increase genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicities, said Nicolas Demogeot, MD, with the Cancer Institute of Lorraine, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France, who presented the results at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

Adding short-term ADT to standard-dose radiotherapy has been shown to improve all clinical outcomes, Dr. Demogeot noted, but few trials have tested it with high-dose radiotherapy. GETUG 14 was designed to do just that.

The multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial enrolled 376 patients with intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer who had PSA levels under 30 ng/mL and no clinical involvement of the seminal vesicles.

Patients were randomly allocated to high-dose radiotherapy (80 Gy) alone or high-dose radiotherapy plus monthly triptorelin and daily flutamide for a total duration of 4 months, starting 2 months prior to radiotherapy.

Disease-free survival was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, biochemical failure, metastasis failure, toxicity, and quality of life.

The modified intention-to-treat cohort included 191 patients in the radiotherapy-only group and 179 in the short-term ADT plus radiotherapy group. The two groups were well balanced. In both, patients ranged in age from 64 to 73 years; about two thirds had intermediate-risk disease; 70% received three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, and 30% received intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

Overall, adding short-term ADT to high-dose radiotherapy was associated with a 36% relative improvement in 5-year disease-free survival (84% vs 76% with radiotherapy alone, hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; P = .02).

In subgroup analyses, intermediate-risk patients who received short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy demonstrated a significant improvement in disease-free survival (87% vs 74% with radiotherapy alone; HR, 0.55; P = .02). However, there was no significant disease-free survival benefit with short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy in high-risk patients (79% vs 75%; HR, 0.76; P = .40).

On multivariable analysis, short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy was associated with significant disease-free survival benefits (HR, 0.66; P = .038).

Patients who received short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy were significantly less likely to experience biochemical failure (10% vs 21%; HR, 0.45; P = .001), but there was no significant difference in metastasis failure (HR, 0.5; P = .09) or overall survival (HR, 1.22; P = .54).

As for adverse events, the two groups did not demonstrate significant differences in the proportions of early or late grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicities.

Patients in the short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy group did experience a greater frequency of early grade 2 or higher erectile dysfunction (31% vs 6%; P < .001), but not late grade 2 or higher erectile dysfunction (63% vs 61%; P = .89).

Limitations of the study include a low power to detect differences between intermediate- and high-risk patients and the short follow-up period.

The GETUG 14 trial “confirms that short-term ADT improves disease-free survival when combined with dose-escalated radiation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer,” Mark A. Hallman, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “However, there was not a similar benefit among the smaller subpopulation with high-risk disease.”

Outside expert Amar Kishan, MD, radiation oncologist, UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, agreed, adding that “it is also reassuring to see no increase in genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicity and no longer-term impact on erectile dysfunction.”

The GETUG-14 trial was supported by the French Ministry of Health and Ipsen. Dr. Demogeot has disclosed relationships with Ipsen, Janssen, Accord Healthcare, Astellas, and Bayer. Dr. Hallman had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Kishan has disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Janssen, Varian Medical Systems, ViewRay, and POINT Biopharma.

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

WASHINGTON — Combining short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with high-dose radiotherapy improves disease-free survival in men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer, compared with high-dose radiotherapy alone, according to results of the phase 3 GETUG 14 trial.

The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 84% in patients who received short-term ADT plus radiotherapy, compared with 76% in those who received radiotherapy alone.

In addition, short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy didn’t increase genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicities, said Nicolas Demogeot, MD, with the Cancer Institute of Lorraine, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France, who presented the results at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

Adding short-term ADT to standard-dose radiotherapy has been shown to improve all clinical outcomes, Dr. Demogeot noted, but few trials have tested it with high-dose radiotherapy. GETUG 14 was designed to do just that.

The multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial enrolled 376 patients with intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer who had PSA levels under 30 ng/mL and no clinical involvement of the seminal vesicles.

Patients were randomly allocated to high-dose radiotherapy (80 Gy) alone or high-dose radiotherapy plus monthly triptorelin and daily flutamide for a total duration of 4 months, starting 2 months prior to radiotherapy.

Disease-free survival was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, biochemical failure, metastasis failure, toxicity, and quality of life.

The modified intention-to-treat cohort included 191 patients in the radiotherapy-only group and 179 in the short-term ADT plus radiotherapy group. The two groups were well balanced. In both, patients ranged in age from 64 to 73 years; about two thirds had intermediate-risk disease; 70% received three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, and 30% received intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

Overall, adding short-term ADT to high-dose radiotherapy was associated with a 36% relative improvement in 5-year disease-free survival (84% vs 76% with radiotherapy alone, hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; P = .02).

In subgroup analyses, intermediate-risk patients who received short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy demonstrated a significant improvement in disease-free survival (87% vs 74% with radiotherapy alone; HR, 0.55; P = .02). However, there was no significant disease-free survival benefit with short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy in high-risk patients (79% vs 75%; HR, 0.76; P = .40).

On multivariable analysis, short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy was associated with significant disease-free survival benefits (HR, 0.66; P = .038).

Patients who received short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy were significantly less likely to experience biochemical failure (10% vs 21%; HR, 0.45; P = .001), but there was no significant difference in metastasis failure (HR, 0.5; P = .09) or overall survival (HR, 1.22; P = .54).

As for adverse events, the two groups did not demonstrate significant differences in the proportions of early or late grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicities.

Patients in the short-term ADT with high-dose radiotherapy group did experience a greater frequency of early grade 2 or higher erectile dysfunction (31% vs 6%; P < .001), but not late grade 2 or higher erectile dysfunction (63% vs 61%; P = .89).

Limitations of the study include a low power to detect differences between intermediate- and high-risk patients and the short follow-up period.

The GETUG 14 trial “confirms that short-term ADT improves disease-free survival when combined with dose-escalated radiation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer,” Mark A. Hallman, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “However, there was not a similar benefit among the smaller subpopulation with high-risk disease.”

Outside expert Amar Kishan, MD, radiation oncologist, UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, agreed, adding that “it is also reassuring to see no increase in genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicity and no longer-term impact on erectile dysfunction.”

The GETUG-14 trial was supported by the French Ministry of Health and Ipsen. Dr. Demogeot has disclosed relationships with Ipsen, Janssen, Accord Healthcare, Astellas, and Bayer. Dr. Hallman had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Kishan has disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Janssen, Varian Medical Systems, ViewRay, and POINT Biopharma.

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

Black box warnings added to antidepressant medications on increased risk for suicidality were associated with a decline in mental health treatment and an increase in suicide attempts and deaths in young people, a new analysis suggests. 

Investigators said the totality of evidence supports “reevaluation and possible replacement” of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) black box warning with routine warnings in product labeling. 

“The sudden, simultaneous, and sweeping effects of these warnings — the reduction in depression treatment and increase in suicide — are documented across 14 years of strong research. The consistency in observed harms and absence of observed benefits after the black box warnings indicate this is not a coincidence,” lead author Stephen Soumerai, ScD, professor of population medicine, Harvard Medical School at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, said in a news release. 

The study was published online in Health Affairs. 
 

How Did We Get Here?

In October 2003, the FDA warned that antidepressants may be associated with suicidality among people younger than age 18 years soon after starting treatment. In January 2005, the FDA required a permanent black box warning of this risk on product labels and in television and print advertising for all antidepressant drugs. 

In May 2007, the FDA expanded the 2005 black box warning to include young adults through age 24, and this broader warning remains in effect today. 

Dr. Soumerai and colleagues evaluated the intended and unintended outcomes of the youth antidepressant warnings through a systematic review of “the most credible evidence in the field,” Dr. Soumerai said. 

Through an exhaustive literature search, the researchers identified 34 studies of depression and suicide-related outcomes published in peer-reviewed journals after the warnings were issued. 

Eleven of these studies measured abrupt changes in outcome trends following the warnings and were included in their analyses. These outcomes included monitoring for suicidality, physician visits for depression, depression diagnoses, psychotherapy visits, antidepressant treatment and use and psychotropic drug poisonings (a proxy for suicide attempts), and suicide deaths. 
 

More Harms Than Benefits

Four studies, with more than 12 million patients, found “consistent evidence of sudden and substantial” long-term declines in doctor visits for depression and depression diagnoses after the FDA warnings, the study team noted.

These studies showed increases in physician visits for depression and depression diagnoses in the years before the warnings and abrupt, sustained declines, ranging from 20% to 45%, in visits and diagnoses after the warnings. “Some spillover occurred in comparison groups of adults, who were not targeted by the FDA warnings,” the study team said. 

Seven studies revealed evidence that the FDA warnings were followed by abrupt reductions in antidepressant treatment and use, ranging from 20% to 50%. Most of these studies showed increasing use of antidepressants in the years before the FDA warnings, followed by abrupt and sustained reductions in use afterward. 

Three studies found evidence of declining or flat trends in psychotropic drug poisonings and suicide deaths among pediatric patients before the warnings, followed by abrupt increases in these trends after the warnings were issued. 

The intent of the warnings was to increase physician monitoring of suicidality of patients treated with antidepressants, but the data suggest that this did not occur. 

Less than 5% of pediatric patients were monitored in accordance with FDA’s recommended contact schedule recommendations after the warnings were issued. This low rate was unchanged from the rate before the warnings. 

No study documented improvements in mental health care or declines in suicide attempts or suicides after the warnings went into effect. 

“The overwhelming evidence suggests that the ongoing use of these warnings may result in more harms than benefits,” the authors wrote. 
 

Concerning Data 

The results are “very concerning and provide reason to pause, rethink, and possibly recalibrate boxed warning recommendations as it relates to antidepressants in younger populations,” said Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, Canada, and head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit.

Dr. McIntyre, who wasn’t involved in the study, said the data “unfortunately” provide evidence suggesting that the boxed warning had the “unintended consequence of increasing the likelihood that persons would not receive adequate healthcare for their mental disorder, consequently resulting in unfavorable outcomes, including suicidality.”

He added, “Two decades have now passed with additional information available, which not only appears to recalibrate the initial risk assessment but provides an opportunity for us to reduce the externality of decreasing access to healthcare for people living with mental illness during their youth years.” 

A spokesperson for the FDA said that “generally, the FDA does not comment on specific studies, but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”

The study had no commercial funding. Disclosures for the authors are listed with the original article. Dr. McIntyre has received speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, and Neurocrine.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Black box warnings added to antidepressant medications on increased risk for suicidality were associated with a decline in mental health treatment and an increase in suicide attempts and deaths in young people, a new analysis suggests. 

Investigators said the totality of evidence supports “reevaluation and possible replacement” of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) black box warning with routine warnings in product labeling. 

“The sudden, simultaneous, and sweeping effects of these warnings — the reduction in depression treatment and increase in suicide — are documented across 14 years of strong research. The consistency in observed harms and absence of observed benefits after the black box warnings indicate this is not a coincidence,” lead author Stephen Soumerai, ScD, professor of population medicine, Harvard Medical School at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, said in a news release. 

The study was published online in Health Affairs. 
 

How Did We Get Here?

In October 2003, the FDA warned that antidepressants may be associated with suicidality among people younger than age 18 years soon after starting treatment. In January 2005, the FDA required a permanent black box warning of this risk on product labels and in television and print advertising for all antidepressant drugs. 

In May 2007, the FDA expanded the 2005 black box warning to include young adults through age 24, and this broader warning remains in effect today. 

Dr. Soumerai and colleagues evaluated the intended and unintended outcomes of the youth antidepressant warnings through a systematic review of “the most credible evidence in the field,” Dr. Soumerai said. 

Through an exhaustive literature search, the researchers identified 34 studies of depression and suicide-related outcomes published in peer-reviewed journals after the warnings were issued. 

Eleven of these studies measured abrupt changes in outcome trends following the warnings and were included in their analyses. These outcomes included monitoring for suicidality, physician visits for depression, depression diagnoses, psychotherapy visits, antidepressant treatment and use and psychotropic drug poisonings (a proxy for suicide attempts), and suicide deaths. 
 

More Harms Than Benefits

Four studies, with more than 12 million patients, found “consistent evidence of sudden and substantial” long-term declines in doctor visits for depression and depression diagnoses after the FDA warnings, the study team noted.

These studies showed increases in physician visits for depression and depression diagnoses in the years before the warnings and abrupt, sustained declines, ranging from 20% to 45%, in visits and diagnoses after the warnings. “Some spillover occurred in comparison groups of adults, who were not targeted by the FDA warnings,” the study team said. 

Seven studies revealed evidence that the FDA warnings were followed by abrupt reductions in antidepressant treatment and use, ranging from 20% to 50%. Most of these studies showed increasing use of antidepressants in the years before the FDA warnings, followed by abrupt and sustained reductions in use afterward. 

Three studies found evidence of declining or flat trends in psychotropic drug poisonings and suicide deaths among pediatric patients before the warnings, followed by abrupt increases in these trends after the warnings were issued. 

The intent of the warnings was to increase physician monitoring of suicidality of patients treated with antidepressants, but the data suggest that this did not occur. 

Less than 5% of pediatric patients were monitored in accordance with FDA’s recommended contact schedule recommendations after the warnings were issued. This low rate was unchanged from the rate before the warnings. 

No study documented improvements in mental health care or declines in suicide attempts or suicides after the warnings went into effect. 

“The overwhelming evidence suggests that the ongoing use of these warnings may result in more harms than benefits,” the authors wrote. 
 

Concerning Data 

The results are “very concerning and provide reason to pause, rethink, and possibly recalibrate boxed warning recommendations as it relates to antidepressants in younger populations,” said Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, Canada, and head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit.

Dr. McIntyre, who wasn’t involved in the study, said the data “unfortunately” provide evidence suggesting that the boxed warning had the “unintended consequence of increasing the likelihood that persons would not receive adequate healthcare for their mental disorder, consequently resulting in unfavorable outcomes, including suicidality.”

He added, “Two decades have now passed with additional information available, which not only appears to recalibrate the initial risk assessment but provides an opportunity for us to reduce the externality of decreasing access to healthcare for people living with mental illness during their youth years.” 

A spokesperson for the FDA said that “generally, the FDA does not comment on specific studies, but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”

The study had no commercial funding. Disclosures for the authors are listed with the original article. Dr. McIntyre has received speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, and Neurocrine.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Black box warnings added to antidepressant medications on increased risk for suicidality were associated with a decline in mental health treatment and an increase in suicide attempts and deaths in young people, a new analysis suggests. 

Investigators said the totality of evidence supports “reevaluation and possible replacement” of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) black box warning with routine warnings in product labeling. 

“The sudden, simultaneous, and sweeping effects of these warnings — the reduction in depression treatment and increase in suicide — are documented across 14 years of strong research. The consistency in observed harms and absence of observed benefits after the black box warnings indicate this is not a coincidence,” lead author Stephen Soumerai, ScD, professor of population medicine, Harvard Medical School at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, said in a news release. 

The study was published online in Health Affairs. 
 

How Did We Get Here?

In October 2003, the FDA warned that antidepressants may be associated with suicidality among people younger than age 18 years soon after starting treatment. In January 2005, the FDA required a permanent black box warning of this risk on product labels and in television and print advertising for all antidepressant drugs. 

In May 2007, the FDA expanded the 2005 black box warning to include young adults through age 24, and this broader warning remains in effect today. 

Dr. Soumerai and colleagues evaluated the intended and unintended outcomes of the youth antidepressant warnings through a systematic review of “the most credible evidence in the field,” Dr. Soumerai said. 

Through an exhaustive literature search, the researchers identified 34 studies of depression and suicide-related outcomes published in peer-reviewed journals after the warnings were issued. 

Eleven of these studies measured abrupt changes in outcome trends following the warnings and were included in their analyses. These outcomes included monitoring for suicidality, physician visits for depression, depression diagnoses, psychotherapy visits, antidepressant treatment and use and psychotropic drug poisonings (a proxy for suicide attempts), and suicide deaths. 
 

More Harms Than Benefits

Four studies, with more than 12 million patients, found “consistent evidence of sudden and substantial” long-term declines in doctor visits for depression and depression diagnoses after the FDA warnings, the study team noted.

These studies showed increases in physician visits for depression and depression diagnoses in the years before the warnings and abrupt, sustained declines, ranging from 20% to 45%, in visits and diagnoses after the warnings. “Some spillover occurred in comparison groups of adults, who were not targeted by the FDA warnings,” the study team said. 

Seven studies revealed evidence that the FDA warnings were followed by abrupt reductions in antidepressant treatment and use, ranging from 20% to 50%. Most of these studies showed increasing use of antidepressants in the years before the FDA warnings, followed by abrupt and sustained reductions in use afterward. 

Three studies found evidence of declining or flat trends in psychotropic drug poisonings and suicide deaths among pediatric patients before the warnings, followed by abrupt increases in these trends after the warnings were issued. 

The intent of the warnings was to increase physician monitoring of suicidality of patients treated with antidepressants, but the data suggest that this did not occur. 

Less than 5% of pediatric patients were monitored in accordance with FDA’s recommended contact schedule recommendations after the warnings were issued. This low rate was unchanged from the rate before the warnings. 

No study documented improvements in mental health care or declines in suicide attempts or suicides after the warnings went into effect. 

“The overwhelming evidence suggests that the ongoing use of these warnings may result in more harms than benefits,” the authors wrote. 
 

Concerning Data 

The results are “very concerning and provide reason to pause, rethink, and possibly recalibrate boxed warning recommendations as it relates to antidepressants in younger populations,” said Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, Canada, and head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit.

Dr. McIntyre, who wasn’t involved in the study, said the data “unfortunately” provide evidence suggesting that the boxed warning had the “unintended consequence of increasing the likelihood that persons would not receive adequate healthcare for their mental disorder, consequently resulting in unfavorable outcomes, including suicidality.”

He added, “Two decades have now passed with additional information available, which not only appears to recalibrate the initial risk assessment but provides an opportunity for us to reduce the externality of decreasing access to healthcare for people living with mental illness during their youth years.” 

A spokesperson for the FDA said that “generally, the FDA does not comment on specific studies, but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”

The study had no commercial funding. Disclosures for the authors are listed with the original article. Dr. McIntyre has received speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, and Neurocrine.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.