Delayed Denosumab Injections and Fracture Risk Among Patients With Osteoporosis: A Population-Based Cohort Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 173, No 7

Background: Denosumab is effective for osteoporosis, but discontinuation leads to rapid reversal of its therapeutic effect. Objective: To estimate the risk for fracture among users of denosumab who delayed subsequent doses compared with users who received doses on time. Design: Population-based cohort study. Setting: The Health Improvement Network U.K. primary care database, 2010 to 2019. Patients: Persons aged 45 years or older who initiated denosumab therapy for osteoporosis. Measurements: Observational data were used to emulate an analysis of a hypothetical trial with 3 dosing intervals: subsequent denosumab injection given within 4 weeks after the recommended date (“on time”), delay by 4 to 16 weeks (“short delay”), and delay by more than 16 weeks (“long delay”). The primary outcome was a composite of all fracture types at 6 months after the recommended date. Secondary outcomes were major osteoporotic fracture, vertebral fracture, hip fracture, and nonvertebral fracture. Results: Investigators identified 2594 patients initiating denosumab therapy. The risk for composite fracture over 6 months was 27.3 in 1000 for on-time dosing, 32.2 in 1000 for short delay, and 42.4 in 1000 for long delay. Compared with on-time injections, short delay had a hazard ratio (HR) for composite fracture of 1.03 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.69) and long delay an HR of 1.44 (CI, 0.96 to 2.17) (P for trend = 0.093). For vertebral fractures, short delay had an HR of 1.48 (CI, 0.58 to 3.79) and long delay an HR of 3.91 (CI, 1.62 to 9.45). Limitation: Dosing schedules were not randomly assigned. Conclusion: Although delayed administration of subsequent denosumab doses by more than 16 weeks is associated with increased risk for vertebral fracture compared with on-time dosing, evidence is insufficient to conclude that fracture risk is increased at other anatomical sites with long delay. Primary Funding Source: National Clinical Research Center for Orthopedics, Sports Medicine & Rehabilitation.

Developing Primary Care–Based Recommendations for Social Determinants of Health: Methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

The purpose of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is to provide evidence-based recommendations on primary care screening, behavioral counseling, and preventive medications. A person's health is strongly influenced by social determinants of health, such as economic and social conditions; therefore, preventive recommendations that address these determinants would be ideal. However, differing social determinants have been proposed by a wide range of agencies and organizations, little prevention evidence is available, and responsible parties are in competition, all of which make the creation of evidence-based prevention recommendations for social determinants of health challenging. This article highlights social determinants already included in USPSTF recommendations and proposes a process by which others may be considered for primary care preventive recommendations. In many ways, incorporating social determinants of health into evidence-based recommendations is an evolving area. By reviewing the evidence on the effects of screening and interventions on social determinants relevant to primary care, the USPSTF will continue to provide recommendations on clinical preventive services to improve the health of all Americans.

Managing Emerging Infectious Diseases: Should Travel Be the Fifth Vital Sign?

Effects of Interleukin-1β Inhibition on Incident Hip and Knee Replacement: Exploratory Analyses From a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 173, No 7

Background: Osteoarthritis is a common inflammatory disorder with no disease-modifying therapies. Whether inhibition of interleukin-1β (IL-1β) can reduce the consequences of large joint osteoarthritis is unclear. Objective: To determine whether IL-1β inhibition with canakinumab reduces incident total hip or knee replacement (THR/TKR). Design: Exploratory analysis of a randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01327846) Setting: 1091 clinical sites in 39 countries. Participants: 10 061 CANTOS (Canakinumab Anti-inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes Study) participants. Intervention: Random allocation to placebo or canakinumab (50, 150, or 300 mg) subcutaneously once every 3 months. Measurements: The primary and secondary outcomes were time to first incident THR/TKR and time to first occurrence of an osteoarthritis-related adverse event (AE). Data were obtained through blinded ascertainment of trial clinical and safety databases. Results: Median follow-up was 3.7 years. For the individual canakinumab dose groups, compared with placebo, hazard ratios (HRs) for incident THR/TKR during follow-up were 0.60 (95% CI, 0.38 to 0.95) for the 50-mg group, 0.53 (CI, 0.33 to 0.84) for the 150-mg group, and 0.60 (CI, 0.38 to 0.93) for the 300-mg group. Thus, in the pooled canakinumab groups, compared with the placebo group, incidence rates for THR/TKR were 0.31 and 0.54 events per 100 person-years (HR, 0.58 [CI, 0.42 to 0.80]; P = 0.001), respectively. The HR for the secondary end point of osteoarthritis-related AEs was 0.73 (CI, 0.61 to 0.87). Similar findings were observed in analyses restricted to participants with a history of osteoarthritis. Limitation: Because the parent trial was not designed to examine the efficacy of IL-1β inhibitors in osteoarthritis, information on structural joint outcomes was not collected. Conclusion: Findings from this exploratory analysis of a randomized controlled trial support further investigation of IL-1β inhibition for treatment of large joint osteoarthritis. Primary Funding Source: Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

Participation of African American Persons in Clinical Trials Supporting U.S. Food and Drug Administration Approval of Cancer Drugs

Analysis of Response Data for Assessing Treatment Effects in Comparative Clinical Studies

In comparative studies, treatment effect is often assessed using a binary outcome that indicates response to the therapy. Commonly used summary measures for response include the cumulative and current response rates at a specific time point. The current response rate is sometimes called the probability of being in response (PBIR), which regards a patient as a responder only if they have achieved and remain in response at present. The methods used in practice for estimating these rates, however, may not be appropriate. Moreover, whereas an effective treatment is expected to achieve a rapid and sustained response, the response at a fixed time point does not provide information about the duration of response (DOR). As an alternative, a curve constructed from the current response rates over the entire study period may be considered, which can be used for visualizing how rapidly patients responded to therapy and how long responses were sustained. The area under the PBIR curve is the mean DOR. This connection between response and DOR makes this curve attractive for assessing the treatment effect. In contrast to the conventional method for analyzing the DOR data, which uses responders only, the above procedure includes all patients in the study. Although discussed extensively in the statistical literature, estimation of the current response rate curve has garnered little attention in the medical literature. This article illustrates how to construct and analyze such a curve using data from a recent study for treating renal cell carcinoma. Clinical trialists are encouraged to consider this robust and clinically interpretable procedure as an additional tool for evaluating treatment effects in clinical studies.

Contributions of Adenocarcinoma and Carcinoid Tumors to Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer Incidence Rates in the United States

Background: Early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) incidence rates (IRs) are rising, according to previous cancer registry analyses. However, analysis of histologic subtypes, including adenocarcinoma (the focus of CRC screening and diagnostic testing) and carcinoid tumors (which are classified as “colorectal cancer” in SEER [Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results] databases but have a distinct pathogenesis and are managed differently from adenocarcinoma), has not been reported. Objective: To assess EOCRC IRs and changes in IRs over time, stratified by histology. Design: Retrospective analysis. Setting: Yearly IRs according to SEER 18 data from 2000 to 2016 on age-specific colon-only, rectal-only, and combined-site CRC cases, stratified by histology (“overall” CRC [all histologic subtypes], adenocarcinoma, and carcinoid tumors) and age. Patients: 119 624 patients with CRC. Measurements: IRs per 100 000 population, changes in 3-year average annual IRs (pooled IRs from 2000 to 2002 vs. those from 2014 to 2016), and annual percentage change (APC) in persons aged 20 to 29, 30 to 39, 40 to 49, and 50 to 54 years. Results: The steepest changes in adenocarcinoma 3-year average annual IRs were for rectal-only cases in persons aged 20 to 29 years (+39% [0.33 to 0.46 per 100 000]; P < 0.050) and 30 to 39 years (+39% [1.92 to 2.66 per 100 000]; P < 0.050) and colon-only cases in those aged 30 to 39 years (+20% [3.30 to 3.97 per 100 000]; P < 0.050). Corresponding APCs were 1.6% (P < 0.050), 2.2% (P < 0.050), and 1.2% (P < 0.050), respectively. In persons aged 40 to 49 years, 3-year average annual IRs increased in both colon-only (+13% [12.21 to 13.85 per 100 000]; P < 0.050) and rectal-only (+16% [7.50 to 8.72 per 100 000]; P < 0.050) subsites. Carcinoid tumors were common, representing approximately 4% to 20% of all colorectal and 8% to 34% of all rectal cancer cases, depending on age group and calendar year. Colon-only carcinoid tumors were rare. Colorectal carcinoid tumor IRs increased more steeply than adenocarcinoma in all age groups, thus affecting the contribution of carcinoid tumors to overall cancer cases over time. These changes were driven by rectal subsites and were most pronounced in persons aged 50 to 54 years, in whom rectal carcinoid tumors increased by 159% (2.36 to 6.10 per 100 000) between 2000 to 2002 and 2014 to 2016, compared with 10% for adenocarcinoma (18.07 to 19.84 per 100 000), ultimately accounting for 22.6% of all rectal cancer cases. Limitation: Population-based data. Conclusion: These findings underscore the importance of assessing histologic CRC subtypes independently. Doing so may lead to a better understanding of the drivers of temporal changes in overall CRC incidence and a more accurate measurement of outcomes from efforts to reduce adenocarcinoma risk, and can guide future research. Primary Funding Source: None.

Medication for Opioid Use Disorder: A National Survey of Primary Care Physicians

Brief Cognitive Tests for Distinguishing Clinical Alzheimer-Type Dementia From Mild Cognitive Impairment or Normal Cognition in Older Adults With Suspected Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 172, No 10

Background: The accuracy and harms of brief cognitive tests for identifying clinical Alzheimer-type dementia (CATD) are uncertain. Purpose: To summarize evidence on accuracy and harms of brief cognitive tests for CATD in older adults with suspected cognitive impairment. Data Sources: Electronic bibliographic databases (from inception to November 2019) and systematic review bibliographies. Study Selection: English-language, controlled observational studies in older adults that evaluated the accuracy of brief cognitive tests (standalone tests; memory, executive function, and language tests; and brief multidomain batteries) for distinguishing CATD from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or normal cognition as defined by established diagnostic criteria. Studies with low or medium risk of bias (ROB) were analyzed. Data Extraction: Two reviewers rated ROB. One reviewer extracted data; the other verified extraction accuracy. Data Synthesis: Fifty-seven studies met analysis criteria. Many brief, single cognitive tests were highly sensitive and specific for distinguishing CATD from normal cognition. These included standalone tests (clock-drawing test, median sensitivity 0.79 and specificity 0.88 [8 studies]; Mini-Mental State Examination, 0.88 and 0.94 [7 studies]; Montreal Cognitive Assessment, 0.94 and 0.94 [2 studies]; and Brief Alzheimer Screen, 0.92 and 0.97 [1 study]), memory tests (list delayed recall, 0.89 and 0.94 [5 studies]), and language tests (category fluency, 0.92 and 0.89 [9 studies]). Accuracy was lower in distinguishing mild CATD from normal cognition and distinguishing CATD from MCI. No studies reported on testing harms. Limitations: Studies were small. Few test metrics were evaluated by multiple studies. Few studies directly compared different tests, scores, cut points, or test combinations. Conclusion: Many brief, single cognitive tests accurately distinguish CATD from normal cognition in older adults but are less accurate in distinguishing mild CATD from normal cognition or CATD from MCI. No studies reported on testing harms. Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42018117897)

Benefits and Harms of Prescription Drugs and Supplements for Treatment of Clinical Alzheimer-Type Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 172, No 10

Background: Effects of drug treatment of clinical Alzheimer-type dementia (CATD) are uncertain. Purpose: To summarize evidence on the effects of prescription drugs and supplements for CATD treatment. Data Sources: Electronic bibliographic databases (inception to November 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov (to November 2019), and systematic review bibliographies. Study Selection: English-language trials of prescription drug and supplement treatment in older adults with CATD that report cognition, function, global measures, behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), or harms. Minimum treatment was 24 weeks (≥2 weeks for selected BPSD). Data Extraction: Studies with low or medium risk of bias (ROB) were analyzed. Two reviewers rated ROB. One reviewer extracted data; another verified extraction accuracy. Data Synthesis: Fifty-five studies reporting non-BPSD outcomes (most ≤26 weeks) and 12 reporting BPSD (most ≤12 weeks) were analyzed. Across CATD severity, mostly low-strength evidence suggested that, compared with placebo, cholinesterase inhibitors produced small average improvements in cognition (median standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.30 [range, 0.24 to 0.52]), no difference to small improvement in function (median SMD, 0.19 [range, −0.10 to 0.22]), no difference in the likelihood of at least moderate improvement in global clinical impression (median absolute risk difference, 4% [range, 2% to 4%]), and increased withdrawals due to adverse events. In adults with moderate to severe CATD receiving cholinesterase inhibitors, low- to insufficient-strength evidence suggested that, compared with placebo, add-on memantine inconsistently improved cognition and improved global clinical impression but not function. Evidence was mostly insufficient about prescription drugs for BPSD and about supplements for all outcomes. Limitation: Most drugs had few trials without high ROB, especially for supplements, active drug comparisons, BPSD, and longer trials. Conclusion: Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine slightly reduced short-term cognitive decline, and cholinesterase inhibitors slightly reduced reported functional decline, but differences versus placebo were of uncertain clinical importance. Evidence was mostly insufficient on drug treatment of BPSD and on supplements for all outcomes. Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42018117897)