Search

The article highlights the U13 Bench-to-Bedside (B2B) conference series, a collaborative effort by the American Geriatrics Society (AGS) and the National Institute on Aging. Topics include the transition of the AGS/National Institute on Aging (NIA) U13 B2B conference series from 2004 to 2017, progressive exploration of key issues in geriatrics reflected in the series of conferences, and an overview of the conferences in the series from 2018 to 2023.

Background/Objectives: To address the underrepresentation of older adults in clinical research, the National Institutes of Health will require investigators to include individuals across the lifespan. As investigators from other fields endeavor to recruit participants who are more representative of the patient population, geriatricians may have the opportunity to influence a broad range of research studies in older adults. Our aims were to elicit challenges to inclusion of older adults in clinical research and to develop a preliminary framework for communicating these challenges to non–geriatrics‐trained researchers. Design: Communication framework development. Setting: Academic hospital and Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Participants: Nongeriatrician researchers and staff, aging research experts. Measurements: Interviews were used to elicit challenges nongeriatrician investigators and research staff experience when conducting research that includes older adults and then solicit experienced aging researchers' responses to these challenges. Results: Challenges described by nongeriatrician investigators included lack of knowledge, rigid study structures, and a disease‐focused approach. Responses from our geriatrics experts included communicating practical advice for avoiding common pitfalls. Our resulting framework is the 5Ts: Target Population, Team, Tools, Time, and Tips to Accommodate. This tool complements the 5Ms (Mind, Mobility, Medications, Multicomplexity, and Matters Most to Me) model for geriatric care and emphasizes representation of the Target Population, building research Teams that include aging expertise, incorporating appropriate Tools for function and patient‐reported outcomes, anticipating Time for longer study visits, and accommodating common needs with practical Tips. Limitations include convenience sampling and lack of formal qualitative thematic analysis. Conclusion: Communicating with nongeriatrician researchers using the 5Ts may offer a practical approach to avoiding barriers to inclusion of older adults in research and complements an existing framework for communicating the value of geriatric medicine. Next steps in developing the 5Ts will be to include additional stakeholders (eg, national samples of nongeriatrician investigators, older adults and their families) and evaluating the impact of its implementation. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:342–346, 2019. See related Editorial by George Kuchel in this issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented which addresses the authors' views about physical resilience in older people, and it mentions how physical resilience differs from frailty. According to the article, physical resilience is an individual's ability to adapt and deal with functional decline following the onset of acute or chronic health issues. Physiological vulnerability to a stressor such as surgery is addressed, along with the impact of biological processes on resilience.

Background: Resilience has been described in the psychosocial literature as the capacity to maintain or regain well-being during or after adversity. Physical resilience is a newer concept that is highly relevant to successful aging. Our objective was to characterize the emerging construct of resilience as it pertains to physical health in older adults, and to identify gaps and opportunities to advance research in this area.Methods: We conducted a systematic review to identify English language papers published through January 2015 that apply the term "resilience" in relation to physical health in older adults. We applied a modified framework analysis to characterize themes in implicit or explicit definitions of physical resilience.Results: Of 1,078 abstracts identified, 49 articles met criteria for inclusion. Sixteen were letters or concept papers, and only one was an intervention study. Definitions of physical resilience spanned cellular to whole-person levels, incorporated many outcome measures, and represented three conceptual themes: resilience as a trait, trajectory, or characteristic/capacity.Conclusions: Current biomedical literature lacks consensus on how to define and measure physical resilience. We propose a working definition of physical resilience at the whole person level: a characteristic which determines one's ability to resist or recover from functional decline following health stressor(s). We present a conceptual framework that encompasses the related construct of physiologic reserve. We discuss gaps and opportunities in measurement, interactions across contributors to physical resilience, and points of intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Relationships between patterns of aging-changes in bodyweight and AD are not fully understood. We compared mean age-trajectories of weight between those who did and did not develop late-onset-AD, and evaluated impact of age at maximum weight (AgeMax), and slope of decline in weight, on AD risk. Women with late-onset-AD had lower weight three or more decades before AD onset, and ∼10 years younger AgeMax, compared to AD-free women. APOE4 carriers had younger AgeMax and steeper slope. Older AgeMax and flatter slope predicted lower AD risk. Premature decline in weight could be a sign of accelerated physical aging contributing to AD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fellows and junior faculty conducting aging research have encountered substantial new challenges during the COVID‐19 pandemic. They report that they have been uncertain how and whether to modify existing research studies, have faced difficulties with job searches, and have struggled to balance competing pressures including greater clinical obligations and increased responsibilities at home. Many have also wondered if they should shift gears and make COVID‐19 the focus of their research. We asked a group of accomplished scientists and mentors to grapple with these concerns and to share their thoughts with readers of this journal. See related Special article by Storer et al. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Resilience, which relates to one's ability to respond to stressors, typically declines with age and the development of comorbid conditions in older organisms. Although progress has been made to improve our understanding of resilience in older adults, disciplines have employed different frameworks and definitions to study various aspects of older adults' response to acute or chronic stressors. "Overview of the Resilience World: State of the Science," a bench‐to‐bedside conference on October 12–13, 2022, was sponsored by the American Geriatrics Society and National Institute on Aging. This conference, summarized in this report, explored commonalities and differences among the frameworks of resilience most commonly used in aging research in the three domains of resilience: physical, cognitive, and psychosocial. These three main domains are intertwined, and stressors in one domain can lead to effects in other domains. The themes of the conference sessions included underlying contributors to resilience, the dynamic nature of resilience throughout the life span, and the role of resilience in health equity. Although participants did not agree on a single definition of "resilience(s)," they identified common core elements of a definition that can be applied to all domains and noted unique features that are domain specific. The presentations and discussions led to recommendations for new longitudinal studies of the impact of exposures to stressors on resilience in older adults, the use of new and existing cohort study data, natural experiments (including the COVID‐19 pandemic), and preclinical models for resilience research, as well as translational research to bring findings on resilience to patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report summarizes the presentations, discussions, and recommendations of the most recent American Geriatrics Society and National Institute on Aging research conference, "Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease," on October 18–19, 2021. The purpose of this virtual meeting was to address the interface between cancer and heart disease, which are the two leading causes of death among older Americans. Age‐related physiologic changes are implicated in the pathogenesis of both conditions. Emerging data suggest that cancer‐related cardiovascular disease (CVD) involves disrupted cell signaling and cellular senescence. The risk factors for CVD are also risk factors for cancer and an increased likelihood of cancer death, and people who have both cancer and CVD do more poorly than those who have only cancer or only CVD. Issues addressed in this bench‐to‐bedside conference include mechanisms of cancer and CVD co‐development in older adults, cardiotoxic effects of cancer therapy, and management of comorbid cancer and CVD. Presenters discussed approaches to ensure equitable access to clinical trials and health care for diverse populations of adults with CVD and cancer, mechanisms of cancer therapy cardiotoxicity, and management of comorbid CVD and cancer, including the role of patient values and preferences in treatment decisions. Workshop participants identified many research gaps and questions that could lead to an enhanced understanding of comorbid CVD and cancer and to better and more equitable management strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective : The associations of some risk factors with cardiovascular disease (CVD) are attenuated in older age; whereas others appear robust. The present study aimed to compare CVD risk factors across older age. Methods : Participants ( n = 4883) in the Cardiovascular Health Study free of prevalent CVD, were stratified into three age groups: 65–74, 75–84, 85+ years. Traditional risk factors included systolic blood pressure (BP), LDL-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, obesity, and diabetes. Novel risk factors included kidney function, C-reactive protein (CRP), and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT pro-BNP). Results : There were 1498 composite CVD events (stroke, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular death) over 5 years. The associations of high systolic BP and diabetes appeared strongest, though both were attenuated with age ( p -values for interaction = 0.01 and 0.002, respectively). The demographic-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for elevated systolic BP were 1.79 (95% confidence interval: 1.49, 2.15), 1.59 (1.37, 1.85) and 1.10 (0.86, 1.41) in participants aged 65–74, 75–84, 85+, and for diabetes, 2.36 (1.89, 2.95), 1.55 (1.27, 1.89), 1.51 (1.10, 2.09). The novel risk factors had consistent associations with the outcome across the age spectrum; low kidney function: 1.69 (1.31, 2.19), 1.61 (1.36, 1.90), and 1.57 (1.16, 2.14) for 65–74, 75–84, and 85+ years, respectively; elevated CRP: 1.54 (1.28, 1.87), 1.33 (1.13, 1.55), and 1.51 (1.15, 1.97); elevated NT pro-BNP: 2.67 (1.96, 3.64), 2.71 (2.25, 3.27), and 2.18 (1.43, 3.45). Conclusions : The associations of most traditional risk factors with CVD were minimal in the oldest old, whereas diabetes, eGFR, CRP, and NT pro-BNP were associated with CVD across older age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is limited research examining the impact of visual impairment (VI) on older adults while considering the complexities of aging, leaving gaps in our understanding of how health consequences of VI might be averted. We created a framework integrating concepts from disability, geriatrics, and ophthalmology that conceptualizes how VI challenges successful aging. Here, VI influences multiple functional domains, and increases the risk of negative health outcomes. This model acknowledges that common causes, such as risk factors that affect eyes and other systems simultaneously, may also drive the relationship between VI and health outcomes. Finally, the model highlights how the impact of VI on aging outcomes can be addressed at multiple intervention points. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Approaches for quantifying physical resilience in older adults have not been described.Methods: We apply two conceptual approaches to defining physical resilience to existing longitudinal data sets in which outcomes are measured after an acute physical stressor. A "recovery phenotype" approach uses statistical methods to describe how quickly and completely a patient recovers. Statistical methods using a recovery phenotype approach can consider multiple outcomes simultaneously in a composite score (eg, factor analysis and principal components analysis) or identify groups of patients with similar recovery trajectories across multiple outcomes (eg, latent class profile analysis). An "expected recovery differential" approach quantifies how patients' actual outcomes are compared to their predicted outcome based on a population-derived model and their individual clinical characteristics at the time of the stressor.Results: Application of the approaches identified different participants as being the most or least physically resilient. In the viral respiratory cohort (n = 186) weighted kappa for agreement across resilience quartiles was 0.37 (0.27-0.47). The expected recovery differential approach identified a group with more comorbidities and lower baseline function as highly resilient. In the hip fracture cohort (n = 541), comparison of the expected recovery differentials across 10 outcome measures within individuals provided preliminary support for the hypothesis that there is a latent resilience trait at the whole-person level.Conclusions: We posit that recovery phenotypes may be useful in clinical applications such as prediction models because they summarize the observed outcomes across multiple measures. Expected recovery differentials offer insight into mechanisms behind physical resilience not captured by age and other comorbidities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although declines in cognitive capacity are assumed to be a characteristic of aging, increasing evidence shows that it is age‐related disease, rather than age itself, that causes cognitive impairment. Even so, older age is a primary risk factor for cognitive decline, and with individuals living longer as a result of medical advances, cognitive impairment and dementia are increasing in prevalence. On March 26 to 27, 2018, the American Geriatrics Society convened a conference in Bethesda, MD, to explore cognitive impairment across the subspecialties. Bringing together representatives from several subspecialties, this was the third of three conferences, supported by a U13 grant from the National Institute on Aging, to aid recipients of Grants for Early Medical/Surgical Specialists' Transition to Aging Research (GEMSSTAR) in integrating geriatrics into their subspecialties. Scientific sessions focused on the impact of cognitive impairment, sensory contributors, comorbidities, links between delirium and dementia, and issues of informed consent in cognitively impaired populations. Discussions highlighted the complexity not only of cognitive health itself, but also of the bidirectional relationship between cognitive health and the health of other organ systems. Thus, conference participants noted the importance of multidisciplinary team science in future aging research. This article summarizes the full conference report, "The Impact of Cognitive Impairment Across Specialties," and notes areas where GEMSSTAR scholars can contribute to progress as they embark on their careers in aging research. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2011–2017, 2019 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To prioritize research topics relevant to the care of the growing population of older adults with multiple chronic conditions ( MCCs). Design Survey of experts in MCC practice, research, and policy. Topics were derived from white papers, funding announcements, or funded research projects relating to older adults with MCCs. Setting Survey conducted through the Health Care Systems Research Network ( HCSRN) and Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Centers ( OAICs) Advancing Geriatrics Infrastructure and Network Growth Initiative, a joint endeavor of the HCSRN and OAICs. Participants Individuals affiliated with the HCSRN or OAICs and national MCC experts, including individuals affiliated with funding agencies having MCC-related grant portfolios. Measurements A 'top box' methodology was used, counting the number of respondents selecting the top response on a 5-point Likert scale and dividing by the total number of responses to calculate a top box percentage for each of 37 topics. Results The highest-ranked research topics relevant to the health and healthcare of older adults with MCCs were health-related quality of life in older adults with MCCs; development of assessment tools (to assess, e.g., symptom burden, quality of life, function); interactions between medications, disease processes, and health outcomes; disability; implementation of novel (and scalable) models of care; association between clusters of chronic conditions and clinical, financial, and social outcomes; role of caregivers; symptom burden; shared decision-making to enhance care planning; and tools to improve clinical decision-making. Conclusion Study findings serve to inform the development of a comprehensive research agenda to address the challenges relating to the care of this 'high-need, high-cost' population and the healthcare delivery systems responsible for serving it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]