Which interventions benefit patients with dementia?

- Jennifer Middleton, MD, MPH

The prevalence of dementia continues to rise, and, according to "Evaluation of Suspected Dementia" in the latest issue of AFP, it's estimated that 14 million adults will be affected by 2050. This increasing prevalence brings increasing concern for many aging adults about developing dementia along with concern by families about how to support their loved ones. Several recent studies provide guidance; although information about diagnosing and caring for dementia patients is relatively robust, the evidence base is weaker regarding interventions that can slow cognitive decline.

Many patients and families worry about impending dementia when early signs of memory loss appear, but mild cognitive impairment (MCI) does not always lead to a dementia diagnosis. In a 2014 study, researchers followed 357 patients with MCI diagnoses over a 3 year period and found that only 22.4% of them progressed to a dementia diagnosis during this time. The majority of patients had stable symptoms that did not worsen.

For those patients who do receive dementia diagnoses, they and their caregivers may ask about interventions to decrease symptom progression. A recent series of systematic reviews explored several options. Despite earlier studies suggesting at least a small benefit from dementia medications, a 2018 systematic review examining the use of different medications (including dementia medications, antihypertensives, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications, aspirin, and statins) found that none delayed cognitive decline. Another systematic review examining the role of over-the-counter supplements found similarly; omega-3 fatty acids, various vitamins, soy, and gingko biloba all failed to demonstrate an effect. Turning to non-pharmacologic interventions, cognitive training increases cognitive abilities in normal adults, but studies have not, to date, supported a role in preventing or slowing dementia progression. Of all potential interventions, only physical activity has been found to slow cognitive decline, but the evidence behind this assertion is of low quality.

Although limited options are currently available to slow dementia's progress, several interventions do exist to help patients and families cope. Case managers can assist family physicians with meeting the most common needs of patients with dementia and their caregivers, early diagnosis and disease education, by providing education, connecting families to local resources, developing care plans, and coordinating social services. Caregivers who interacted with case managers reported increased confidence in caring for their family members. AAFP also has an online Cognitive Care Kit that includes cognitive evaluation tools, management resources, caregiver resources, and tools for discussing end of life planning. Shared group visits can offer patients and caregivers support and can increase practices' efficiency in caring for these often complex patients.

There's an AFP By Topic on Dementia if you'd like to read more; it includes these pro and con editorials regarding routine screening for cognitive impairment (about which the United States Preventive Services Task Force has issued an "I" statement). The AFP article on "Evaluation of Suspected Dementia" includes links to several assessment tools; I've added the Mini-Cog test and the Saint Louis University Mental Status Examination (SLUMS) to my AFP Favorites page for easy access at the point-of-care.

What resources and tools have you found useful in caring for patients with dementia?

For hypertension and diabetes, lower treatment targets not necessarily better

- Kenny Lin, MD, MPH

In a previous AFP Community Blog post, Dr. Jennifer Middleton analyzed the 2017 American College of Cardiology / American Heart Association clinical practice guideline on high blood pressure in adults, which proposed lowering the threshold for hypertension from 140/90 to 130/80 mm Hg. Later, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Physicians independently declined to endorse this guideline, citing concerns about its methodology (e.g., no quality assessment for included studies), management of intellectual conflicts of interest, and lack of information on harms of intensive drug therapy.

The March 15th issue of American Family Physician included a Practice Guideline summary and an editorial perspective on the ACC/AHA guideline by Dr. Michael LeFevre, a member of the panel that developed the JNC 8 guideline for hypertension in adults. In his editorial, Dr. LeFevre pointed out that the guideline's strengths include its emphasis on proper blood pressure measurement technique to avoid overtreating adults with normal out-of-office blood pressures. On the other hand, he argued that "it is an overreach" to classify everyone with a blood pressure above 130/80 as having uncontrolled hypertension. He predicted that since intensive behavioral counseling has only modest benefits in lowering blood pressure, many patients at low risk of cardiovascular disease will end up being treated with medication:

Much harm will come if this change [to the definition of hypertension] is widely accepted and implemented, particularly if quality measures that echo this definition are put into place. Harms from the consequences of poor measurement, overmedication, and arbitrary quality measures can easily offset the small reduction in CVD events found in trials of high-risk persons.

Blood pressure is not the only area of family medicine where there is ongoing debate about appropriate treatment thresholds. In a recent clinical guidance statement, the American College of Physicians recommended that clinicians "aim to achieve an HbA1c level between 7% and 8% in most patients with type 2 diabetes," and "consider deintensifying pharmacologic therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes who achieve HbA1c levels less than 6.5%." This statement elicited a critical response from the American Diabetes Association and endocrinology groups, who argued that lower blood glucose targets are sometimes appropriate to reduce the risk of microvascular and perhaps cardiovacular complications.

This debate between lower and higher A1c targets has been ongoing for years, as illustrated by a pair of Pro and Con editorials on this topic that appeared in AFP in 2012. On the whole, however, more relaxed glucose control can have substantial benefits, especially for older persons with type 2 diabetes, as Dr. Allen Shaughnessy and colleagues argued in 2015:

A large part of the acceptance that “lower is better” hinges on a false belief that a pathophysiologic approach to decision making is always correct. It seems logical that reducing blood glucose levels to nondiabetic normal, no matter the risk or cost, should result in improved patient outcomes. But it doesn't. Today, an older patient with type 2 diabetes is more likely to be hospitalized for severe hypoglycemia than for hyperglycemia.

Underlining this point, a vignette-based study in the March/April issue of Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine found that primary care clinicians (particularly internists and nurse practitioners) would often chose to intensify glycemic control in an older adult with a HbA1c level of 7.5% and multiple life-limiting comorbidities. As family physicians look for opportunities to improve care for patients with hypertension and diabetes, we should not miss opportunities to avoid harm. 

Breastfeeding + pacifiers = no problem

- Jennifer Middleton, MD, MPH

In the designated "Baby-Friendly" hospital where I round, the use of pacifiers is discouraged in breastfeeding infants in the newborn nursery. Advising breastfeeding mothers about the risks of pacifier use contributing to early weaning is common practice, despite conflicting studies regarding the validity of this risk. A Cochrane meta-analysis, reviewed in the March 1 issue of AFP, may put the controversy to rest, as the reviewers found that pacifier use did not interfere with the establishment or duration of breastfeeding.

The Cochrane reviewers identified two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for their meta-analysis, both of which divided breastfeeding mothers of newborn infants into two groups: one where pacifiers were prohibited, and one where pacifiers were permitted. Researchers in both RCTs found no difference in breastfeeding rates at 3-4 months of life between these two groups. Arguments against pacifier use have cited previous observational studies finding that pacifier use correlates with diminished establishment of maternal milk supply; the permissive pacifier groups in both of these RCTs, however, included pacifier use even in the immediate newborn period.

As these RCTs only included outcomes on breastfeeding rates in the first months of life, the AFP reviewers rightly encourage future research focusing on pacifiers' possible effect on additional outcomes including maternal confidence and total duration of breastfeeding. These more robust outcomes may dispel any lingering concerns about pacifier use. Adding pacifiers back to the tools available for comforting newborns certainly may benefit both babies and parents; since nonnutritive sucking is a natural self-soothing reflex in newborns, I suspect many parents would concur with my own experience regarding a pacifier's utility in calming a fussy baby.

If you'd like to read more, there are recent AFP articles on "Strategies for Breastfeeding Success" and "Risks and Benefits of Pacifiers," an editorial on "The Maternal Health Benefits of Breastfeeding," and a patient information page on "Helpful Tips for Breastfeeding." (Although these earlier articles do not reflect the findings of this new meta-analysis regarding pacifier use, they still contain a wealth of useful information for supporting breastfeeding in your practice.) The AAFP has a position paper on breastfeeding which encourages breastfeeding education in medical schools and residencies, breastfeeding-friendly office practices, and community advocacy to support breastfeeding mothers. This Society of Teachers of Family Medicine blog post from 2013 puts a compelling personal spin on the challenges of returning to work while breastfeeding, including suggestions on supporting breastfeeding within our own profession of working mothers.

Public health and advocacy resources in American Family Physician

- Kenny Lin, MD, MPH

Shaping local and national policies to improve patients' health outcomes is an appropriate and important role for family physicians. For the past several years, I have taught public health and advocacy skills to medical students, and last month, I attended Academy Health's National Health Policy conference in Washington, DC, for the first time. Although the majority of participants were researchers or policy analysts, family physicians were well-represented as medical directors, public health and insurance officials, and leaders of privately funded community health improvement projects.

In a previous blog post, I discussed the concept of assessing social determinants of health through "community vital signs," geocoded and individually linked data derived from public data sources. Although American Family Physician focuses on health interventions that clinicians provide in offices, emergency rooms, hospitals, and long-term care facilities, it also publishes resources to help family physicians improve social determinants outside of health care settings. For example, a 2014 editorial examined the role of the family physician in preventing and managing adverse childhood experiences, and a review article in the February 1 issue discussed implications for physicians of childhood bullying.

Previous editorials and articles have addressed environmental health hazards such as lead, radon, air pollution and climate change, and a 2011 Letter to the Editor urged family physicians to take action to affect the built environment of American communities by "working to ensure that our patients have safe, convenient, and enjoyable places to walk, run, and bike." Other public health issues where physician advocacy can make a positive difference include food insecurity, homelessness, and firearm safety.

Family physicians are often first responders to natural and unnatural disasters in their communities. From influenza pandemics to bioterrorism, preparedness and early recognition is essential to protecting our patients. A 2015 editorial argued that the rapid spread of infectious diseases and migration and displacement of diverse populations have made global health knowledge essential for every family physician, regardless of location: "As the recent Ebola epidemic demonstrated, the world is not only smaller than ever, but it is also more intricately connected. Exotic diseases once confined to the third or developing world are now everyone's concern. Global has truly become local." For example, clinicians are likely to encounter victims of sex trafficking and labor trafficking in their practices.

AFP's sister publication, FPM, also provides resources for primary care clinicians with community and public health roles, from launching a community-wide flu vaccination plan, to following the Grand Junction, Colorado example of improving health system cost and quality outcomes, to working with community-based senior organizations. Finally, family medicine advocates can stay abreast of national initiatives that will shape the specialty's future, such as direct primary care, the patient-centered medical home, and the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA).