Search

Background interventions targeting older adults with cognitive frailty have grown rapidly in recent years with inconsistent findings. However, there is no meta-analysis that has synthesised pooled estimates. Objective to synthesise the pooled effect of current targeted interventions in older people with cognitive frailty. Methods we conducted a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the JBI database and three Chinese databases (CNKI, Wan-Fang and VIP) for literature from the inception of the database until 8 March 2022. The mean difference or standardised mean difference with 95% CIs was calculated. The methodological quality was assessed by the Cochrane RoB 2.0. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria. Results thirteen randomised controlled trials with a total of 1,089 participants were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed that older adults with cognitive frailty in the intervention groups had significant improvement in frailty score [MD = −1.67, 95% CI (−2.39, −0.95), P  < 0.00001, I 2 = 97%], global cognitive function [MD = 3.38, 95% CI (1.90, 4.85), P  < 0.00001, I 2 = 93%], mobility [MD = −0.96, 95% CI (−1.27, −1.66), P  < 0.00001, I 2 = 0%], muscle strength [SMD = 0.75, 95% CI (0.09, 1.41), P  = 0.03, I 2 = 85%] and nutritional status [MNA:MD = 5.64, 95% CI (3.99, 7.29), P  < 0.00001, I 2 = 89%; ALB: MD = 3.23, 95% CI (0.76, 5.71), P  = 0.01, I 2 = 93%; PALB: MD = 54.52, 95% CI (25.26, 83.77), P  = 0.0003, I 2 = 96%; TRF: MD = 0.64, 95% CI (0.22, 1.06), P  = 0.003, I 2 = 97%]. The overall certainty of the evidence ranged from low to moderate. Conclusions interventions targeting older adults with cognitive frailty are effective in improving physical frailty, global cognitive function, physical function and nutritional status with low to moderate certainty. More research is still needed in the future to further enrich the evidence in these fields. PROSPERO number CRD42022318758. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Mobility is defined as the ability to independently move around the environment and is a key contributor to quality of life, especially in older age. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of mobility as a decisive outcome for the marketing authorisation of drugs by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Methods Fifteen therapeutic areas which commonly lead to relevant mobility impairments and alter the quantity and/or the quality of walking were selected: two systemic neurological diseases, four conditions primarily affecting exercise capacity, seven musculoskeletal diseases and two conditions representing sensory impairments. European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) published by the EMA until September 2020 were examined for mobility endpoints included in their 'main studies'. Clinical study registries and primary scientific publications for these studies were also reviewed. Results Four hundred and eighty-four EPARs yielded 186 relevant documents with 402 'main studies'. The EPARs reported 153 primary and 584 secondary endpoints which considered mobility; 70 different assessment tools (38 patient-reported outcomes, 13 clinician-reported outcomes, 8 performance outcomes and 13 composite endpoints) were used. Only 15.7% of those tools distinctly informed on patients' mobility status. Out of 402, 105 (26.1%) of the 'main studies' did not have any mobility assessment. Furthermore, none of these studies included a digital mobility outcome. Conclusions For conditions with a high impact on mobility, mobility assessment was given little consideration in the marketing authorisation of drugs by the EMA. Where mobility impairment was considered to be a relevant outcome, questionnaires or composite scores susceptible to reporting biases were predominantly used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The objective was to use the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care "6-Clicks" scores at initial physical therapist and/or occupational therapist evaluation to assess (1) predictive ability for community versus institutional discharge, and (2) association with discharge destination (home/self-care [HOME], home health [HHA], skilled nursing facility [SNF], and inpatient rehabilitation facility [IRF]). Methods In this retrospective cohort study, initial "6-Clicks" Basic Mobility and/or Daily Activity t scores and discharge destination were obtained from electronic health records of 17,546 inpatient admissions receiving physical therapy/occupational therapy at an academic hospital between October 1, 2015 and August 31, 2018. For objective (1), postacute discharge destination was dichotomized to community (HOME and HHA) and institution (SNF and IRF). Receiver operator characteristic curves determined the most predictive Basic Mobility and Daily Activity scores for discharge destination. For objective (2), adjusted odds ratios (OR) from multinomial logistic regression assessed association between discharge destination (HOME, HHA, SNF, IRF) and cut-point scores for Basic Mobility (≤40.78 vs >40.78) and Daily Activity (≤40.22 vs >40.22), accounting for patient and clinical characteristics. Results Area under the curve for Basic Mobility was 0.80 (95% CI = 0.80–0.81) and Daily Activity was 0.81 (95% CI = 0.80–0.82). The best cut-point for Basic Mobility was 40.78 (raw score = 16; sensitivity = 0.71 and specificity = 0.74) and for Daily Activity was 40.22 (raw score = 19; sensitivity = 0.68 and specificity = 0.79). Basic Mobility and Daily Activity were significantly associated with discharge destination, with those above the cut-point resulting in increased odds of discharge HOME. The Basic Mobility scores ≤40.78 had higher odds of discharge to HHA (OR = 1.7 [95% CI = 1.5–1.9]), SNF (OR = 7.8 [95% CI = 6.8–8.9]), and IRF (OR = 7.5 [95% CI = 6.3–9.1]), and the Daily Activity scores ≤40.22 had higher odds of discharge to HHA (OR = 1.8 [95% CI = 1.7–2.0]), SNF (OR = 8.9 [95% CI = 7.9–10.0]), and IRF (OR = 11.4 [95% CI = 9.7–13.5]). Conclusion 6-Clicks at physical therapist/occupational therapist initial evaluation demonstrated good prediction for discharge decisions. Higher scores were associated with discharge to HOME; lower scores reflected discharge to settings with increased support levels. Impact Initial Basic Mobility and Daily Activity scores are valuable clinical tools in the determination of discharge destination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Identifying subgroups of low back pain (LBP) has the potential to improve prediction of clinical outcomes. Risk stratification is one such strategy that identifies similar characteristics indicative of a common clinical outcome trajectory. The purpose of this study was to determine if an empirically derived subgrouping approach based on physical impairment measures improves information provided from the STarT Back Tool (SBT). Methods At baseline in this secondary analysis of a cohort study, patients (N = 144) receiving physical therapy for LBP completed the SBT and tests (active lumbar flexion, extension, lateral bending, and passive straight-leg raise) from a validated physical impairment index. Clinical outcomes were assessed at 4 weeks and included the Numerical Pain Rating Scale and Oswestry Disability Index. Exploratory hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis identified empirically derived subgroups based on physical impairment measures. Independent samples t testing and chi-square analysis were used to assess baseline subgroup differences in demographic and clinical measures. Spearman rho correlation coefficient was used to assess baseline SBT risk and impairment subgroup relationships, and a 3-way mixed-model ANOVA was used to assessed SBT risk and impairment subgroup relationships with clinical outcomes at 4 weeks. Results Two physical impairment-based subgroups emerged from cluster analysis: (1) low-risk impairment (n = 119, 81.5%), characterized by greater lumbar mobility; and (2) high-risk impairment (n = 25, 17.1%), characterized by less lumbar mobility. A weak, positive relationship was observed between baseline SBT risk and impairment subgroups (r s = .170). An impairment-by-SBT risk-by-time interaction effect was observed for Oswestry Disability Index scores but not for Numerical Pain Rating Scale scores at 4 weeks. Conclusions Physical impairment subgroups were not redundant with SBT risk categories and could improve prediction of 4-week LBP disability outcomes. Physical impairment subgroups did not improve the prediction of 4-week pain intensity scores. Impact Subgroups based on physical impairment and psychosocial risk could lead to better prediction of LBP disability outcomes and eventually allow for treatment options tailored to physical and psychosocial risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]