Search

Background: Data regarding the importance of multidimensional frailty to guide clinical decision making for remdesivir use in older patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are largely unexplored., Objective: The aim of this research was to evaluate if the Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI), a multidimensional frailty tool based on the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA), may help physicians in identifying older hospitalized patients affected by COVID-19 who might benefit from the use of remdesivir., Methods: This was a multicenter, prospective study of older adults hospitalized for COVID-19 in 10 European hospitals, followed-up for 90 days after hospital discharge. A standardized CGA was performed at hospital admission and the MPI was calculated, with a final score ranging between 0 (lowest mortality risk) and 1 (highest mortality risk). We assessed survival with Cox regression, and the impact of remdesivir on mortality (overall and in hospital) with propensity score analysis, stratified by MPI = 0.50., Results: Among 496 older adults hospitalized for COVID-19 (mean age 80 years, female 59.9%), 140 (28.2% of patients) were treated with remdesivir. During the 90 days of follow-up, 175 deaths were reported, 115 in hospital. Remdesivir treatment significantly reduced the risk of overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.54, 95% confidence interval CI 0.35-0.83 in the propensity score analysis) in the sample as whole. Stratifying the population, based on MPI score, the effect was observed only in less frail participants (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22-0.96 in propensity score analysis), but not in frailer subjects. In-hospital mortality was not influenced by remdesivir use., Conclusions: MPI could help to identify less frail older adults hospitalized for COVID-19 who could benefit more from remdesivir treatment in terms of long-term survival., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: Explicit screening tools and implicit evaluation methods have been developed to assist healthcare professionals in the management of pharmacotherapy in older adults. As prescribing habits and locally available medications vary considerably between countries, guides tailored to the needs of specific regions may be required. We aimed to report the results of the international Delphi validation study for the Turkish Inappropriate Medication use in the Elderly (TIME) criteria set, which aims to detect inappropriate prescribing in older adults in Eastern Europe., Methods: The study was conducted between June 2019 and March 2020. Delphi rounds were conducted by the TIME international working group, which included 11 internationally recognized experts in geriatric pharmacotherapy as Delphi panelists. They were asked to indicate to what extent they agreed or disagreed with each TIME criterion, taking into account both the available evidence and their own experience. We used a five-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) and an online software program (SurveyMonkey ® ) to grade the level of agreement. Criteria with a median value of 1 or 2 and a 75th centile value of 1 or 2 were accepted, and criteria with a median value > 2 were rejected. Those with a median value of 1 or 2 but a 75th centile value > 2 were retained, to be assessed in the following round. The initial list of Delphi criteria comprised 153 TIME items., Results: After three Delphi rounds, 134 criteria were accepted and seven criteria were rejected, while 12 criteria did not achieve consensus, and so were not included in the final validated set of TIME criteria., Conclusion: We developed the internationally validated TIME criteria set based on a Delphi process involving international experts. The validation study suggests that the TIME criteria set can be applied in both central and Eastern European settings. Further studies are needed to assess the utility and benefit of the TIME criteria in reducing inappropriate drug use and improving clinical outcomes.

Background: There has been concern about under-representation of older people in clinical trials. The PREDICT study reported that older people and those with co-morbidity continue to be excluded unjustifiably from clinical trials. However, there is no information about differences of opinion on these issues between EU countries. The results of a survey of health-related professionals from nine EU countries that participated in the PREDICT study are presented in this study., Objective: The aim of the study was to identify and examine any differences of opinion between EU countries on the inclusion of older patients in clinical trials., Methods: A questionnaire using a Likert scale and free text was completed by 521 general practitioners, geriatricians, clinical researchers, ethicists, nurses and industry pharmacologists/pharmacists. The questions explored the impact of the present situation, possible reasons for under-representation and potential methods of improving participation. Countries participating were the Czech Republic, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain and the UK., Results: There was agreement that exclusion from clinical trials on age grounds alone was unjustified (87%) and that under-representation of older people in trials caused difficulties for prescribers (79%) and patients (73%). There were national differences between professionals. All but the Lithuanians believed that older people were disadvantaged because of under-representation. The Czech, Lithuanian and Romanian professionals felt that it was justified to have age limits based on co-morbidity (61-83%) and polypharmacy (63-85%). Romanians also thought that having age limits on trial participation was justified because of reduced life expectancy (62%) and physical disability (58%) in older people. All but the Romanian professionals felt that the present arrangements for clinical trials were satisfactory (62%). All but the Israelis (56%) and Lithuanians (70%) agreed that regulation of clinical trials needed alteration., Conclusions: Although respondent selection bias cannot be excluded, the differences that emerged between countries may be the result of the political and healthcare-system differences between older and newer members of the EU. These differences may influence decision making about clinical trial regulations and practice in older people.

The question of whether aging is a disease is old and controverted. Three possible positions are outlined: (i) aging is a natural event, not a disease; (ii) aging is a disease, to be combated by medical knowledge and skills; and (iii) aging, while natural, can be treated as if it is a disease and efforts made to lessen its undesirable impact. The last position seems, de facto, the one that is being pursued by contemporary medicine; however, in such a pursuit, important issues will be raised of intergenerational justice in paying for advances in medicine, and the need to balance the medical goals of care for aged people against other important social needs.