Search

Objectives: To determine whether vitamin D supplementation can reduce the incidence of falls and fractures in older people in residential care who are not classically vitamin D deficient. Design: Randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind, trial of 2 years' duration. Setting: Multicenter study in 60 hostels (assisted living facilities) and 89 nursing homes across Australia. Participants: Six hundred twenty-five residents (mean age 83.4) with serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels between 25 and 90 nmol/L. Intervention: Vitamin D supplementation (ergocalciferol, initially 10,000 IU given once weekly and then 1,000 IU daily) or placebo for 2 years. All subjects received 600 mg of elemental calcium daily as calcium carbonate. Measurements: Falls and fractures recorded prospectively in study diaries by care staff. Results: The vitamin D and placebo groups had similar baseline characteristics. In intention-to-treat analysis, the incident rate ratio for falling was 0.73 (95% confidence interval (CI)=0.57–0.95). The odds ratio for ever falling was 0.82 (95% CI=0.59–1.12) and for ever fracturing was 0.69 (95% CI=0.40–1.18). An a priori subgroup analysis of subjects who took at least half the prescribed capsules (n=540), demonstrated an incident rate ratio for falls of 0.63 (95% CI=0.48–0.82), an odds ratio (OR) for ever falling of 0.70 (95% CI=0.50–0.99), and an OR for ever fracturing of 0.68 (95% CI=0.38–1.22). Conclusion: Older people in residential care can reduce their incidence of falls if they take a vitamin D supplement for 2 years even if they are not initially classically vitamin D deficient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To determine the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in older people in residential care and the influence that the level of vitamin D may have on their incidence of falls. Prospective cohort. Residential care facilities for older people in several states of Australia. Six hundred sixty-seven women in low-level care and 952 women in high-level care, mean age 83.7 years. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25D) levels and recognized risk factors for falls including current medication use, a history of previous fractures, weight, tibial length (as a surrogate for height), cognitive function, walking ability, and frequency of going outdoors were determined. The women in low-level care and high-level care were followed for an average of 145 and 168 days, respectively. Falls were recorded prospectively in diaries completed monthly by residential care staff. Vitamin D deficiency (defined as a serum 25D level below 25 nmol/L) was present in 144 (22%) women in low-level care and 428 (45%) in high-level care. After excluding 358 bed-bound residents and adjusting for weight, cognitive status, psychotropic drug use, previous Colles fracture, and the presence of wandering behavior, log serum 25D level remained independently associated with time to first fall. The adjusted hazards ratio was 0.74 (95% confidence interval=0.59–0.94; P= .01), implying a 20% reduction in the risk of falling with a doubling of the vitamin D level. Vitamin D deficiency is common in residential care in Australia. A low level of serum vitamin D is an independent predictor of incident falls. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Utilitarianism is more convincing than resource egalitarianism or welfare egalitarianism as a theory of how resources should be distributed between disabled people and nondisabled people. Unlike resource egalitarianism, utilitarianism can redistribute resources to the disabled when they would benefit more from those resources than nondisabled people. Unlike welfare egalitarianism, utilitarianism can halt redistribution when the disabled would no longer benefit more than the nondisabled from additional resources. The author considers one objection to this view: it has been argued, by Sen and others, that there are circumstances under which utilitarianism would unfairly distribute fewer resources to the physically disabled than to nondisabled people, on the ground that the disabled would derive less benefit from those resources. In response, the author claims that critics of utilitarianism have fallaciously exaggerated the circumstances under which the disabled would benefit less than the nondisabled from additional resources. In those limited circumstances in which the disabled really would benefit less from resources, the author argues, it does not seem unfair to distribute fewer resources to them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response to a letter to the editor about the article on the significance of poststroke urinary incontinence as a negative predictor of functional recovery on the basis of aging is presented.