Search

BackgroundFalls are common in older adults and can lead to severe injuries. The Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) trial cluster-randomized 86 primary care practices across 10 health systems to a multifactorial intervention to prevent fall injuries, delivered by registered nurses trained as falls care managers, or enhanced usual care. STRIDE enrolled 5451 community-dwelling older adults age ≥70 at increased fall injury risk.MethodsWe assessed fall-related outcomes via telephone interviews of participants (or proxies) every 4 months. At baseline, 12 and 24 months, we assessed health-related quality of life (HRQOL) using the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-VAS. We used Poisson models to assess intervention effects on falls, fall-related fractures, fall injuries leading to hospital admission, and fall injuries leading to medical attention. We used hierarchical longitudinal linear models to assess HRQOL.ResultsFor recurrent event models, intervention versus control incidence rate ratios were 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.00; p = 0.048) for falls, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.80-1.08; p = 0.337) for self-reported fractures, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.73-1.07; p = 0.205) for adjudicated fractures, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.77-1.07; p = 0.263) for falls leading to hospital admission, and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.89-1.06; p = 0.477) for falls leading to medical attention. Similar effect sizes (non-significant) were obtained for dichotomous outcomes (e.g., participants with ≥1 events). The difference in least square mean change over time in EQ-5D-5L (intervention minus control) was 0.009 (95% CI, -0.002 to 0.019; p = 0.106) at 12 months and 0.005 (95% CI, -0.006 to 0.015; p = 0.384) at 24 months.ConclusionsAcross a standard set of outcomes typically reported in fall prevention studies, we observed modest improvements, one of which was statistically significant. Future work should focus on patient-, practice-, and organization-level operational strategies to increase the real-world effectiveness of interventions, and improving the ability to detect small but potentially meaningful clinical effects.Clinicaltrialsgov identifier: NCT02475850.

Changes that accompany older age can alter the pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and likelihood of adverse effects (AEs) of a drug. However, older adults, especially the oldest or those with multiple chronic health conditions, polypharmacy, or frailty, are often under-represented in clinical trials of new drugs. Deficits in the current conduct of clinical evaluation of drugs for older adults and potential steps to fill those knowledge gaps are presented in this communication. The most important step is to increase clinical trial enrollment of older adults who are representative of the target treatment population. Unnecessary eligibility criteria should be eliminated. Physical and financial barriers to participation should be removed. Incentives could be created for inclusion of older adults. Enrollment goals should be established based on intended treatment indications, prevalence of the condition, and feasibility. Relevant clinical pharmacology data need to be obtained early enough to guide dosing and reduce risk for participation of older adults. Relevant PK and PD data as well as patient-centered outcomes should be measured during trials. Trial data should be analyzed for differences in PK, PD, effectiveness, and safety arising from differences in age or from the presence of conditions common in older adults. Postmarket evaluations with real-world evidence and drug labeling updates throughout the product lifecycle reflecting new knowledge are also needed. A comprehensive plan is needed to ensure adequate evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of drugs in older adults.

Background/objectivesIn the Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) study, a multifactorial intervention was associated with a nonsignificant 8% reduction in time to first serious fall injury but a significant 10% reduction in time to first self-reported fall injury relative to enhanced usual care. The effect of the intervention on other outcomes important to patients has not yet been reported. We aimed to evaluate the effect of the intervention on patient well-being including concern about falling, anxiety, depression, physical function, and disability.DesignPragmatic cluster-randomized trial of 5,451 community-living persons at high risk for serious fall injuries.SettingA total of 86 primary care practices within 10 U.S. healthcare systems.ParticipantsA random subsample of 743 persons aged 75 and older.MeasurementsThe well-being measures, assessed at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months, included a modified version of the Fall Efficacy Scale, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) anxiety and depression scales, and Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument.ResultsParticipants in the intervention (n = 384) and control groups (n = 359) were comparable in age: mean (standard deviation) of 81.9 (4.7) versus 81.8 (5.0) years. Mean scores were similar between groups at 12 and 24 months for concern about falling, physical function, and disability, whereas the intervention group's mean scores on anxiety and depression were .7 points lower (i.e., better) at 12 months and .6 to .8 points lower at 24 months. For each of these outcomes, differences between the groups' adjusted least square mean changes from baseline to 12 and 24 months, respectively, were quantitatively small. The overall difference in means between groups over 2 years was statistically significant only for depression, favoring the intervention: -1.19 (99% confidence interval, -2.36 to -.02), with 3.5 points representing a minimally important difference.ConclusionsSTRIDE's multifactorial intervention to reduce fall injuries was not associated with clinically meaningful improvements in patient well-being.

BackgroundInjuries from falls are major contributors to complications and death in older adults. Despite evidence from efficacy trials that many falls can be prevented, rates of falls resulting in injury have not declined.MethodsWe conducted a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifactorial intervention that included risk assessment and individualized plans, administered by specially trained nurses, to prevent fall injuries. A total of 86 primary care practices across 10 health care systems were randomly assigned to the intervention or to enhanced usual care (the control) (43 practices each). The participants were community-dwelling adults, 70 years of age or older, who were at increased risk for fall injuries. The primary outcome, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was the first serious fall injury, adjudicated with the use of participant report, electronic health records, and claims data. We hypothesized that the event rate would be lower by 20% in the intervention group than in the control group.ResultsThe demographic and baseline characteristics of the participants were similar in the intervention group (2802 participants) and the control group (2649 participants); the mean age was 80 years, and 62.0% of the participants were women. The rate of a first adjudicated serious fall injury did not differ significantly between the groups, as assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis (events per 100 person-years of follow-up, 4.9 in the intervention group and 5.3 in the control group; hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.06; P = 0.25). The rate of a first participant-reported fall injury was 25.6 events per 100 person-years of follow-up in the intervention group and 28.6 events per 100 person-years of follow-up in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.99; P = 0.004). The rates of hospitalization or death were similar in the two groups.ConclusionsA multifactorial intervention, administered by nurses, did not result in a significantly lower rate of a first adjudicated serious fall injury than enhanced usual care. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and others; STRIDE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02475850.).

BackgroundThis paper describes a protocol for determining the incidence of serious fall injuries for Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE), a large, multicenter pragmatic clinical trial with limited resources for event adjudication. We describe how administrative data (from participating health systems and Medicare claims) can be used to confirm participant-reported events, with more time- and resource-intensive full-text medical record data used only on an "as-needed" basis.MethodsSTRIDE is a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial involving 5451 participants age ≥ 70 and at increased risk for falls, served by 86 primary care practices in 10 US health systems. The STRIDE intervention involves a nurse falls care manager who assesses a participant's underlying risks for falls, suggests interventions using motivational interviewing, and then creates, implements and longitudinally follows up on an individualized care plan with the participant (and caregiver when appropriate), in partnership with the participant's primary care provider. STRIDE's primary outcome is serious fall injuries, defined as a fall resulting in: (1) medical attention billable according to Medicare guidelines with a) fracture (excluding isolated thoracic vertebral and/or lumbar vertebral fracture), b) joint dislocation, or c) cut requiring closure; OR (2) overnight hospitalization with a) head injury, b) sprain or strain, c) bruising or swelling, or d) other injury determined to be "serious" (i.e., burn, rhabdomyolysis, or internal injury). Two sources of data are required to confirm a serious fall injury. The primary data source is the participant's self-report of a fall leading to medical attention, identified during telephone interview every 4 months, with the confirmatory source being (1) administrative data capturing encounters at the participating health systems or Medicare claims and/or (2) the full text of medical records requested only as needed.DiscussionAdjudication is ongoing, with over 1000 potentially qualifying events adjudicated to date. Administrative data can be successfully used for adjudication, as part of a hybrid approach that retrieves full-text medical records only when needed. With the continued refinement and availability of administrative data sources, future studies may be able to use administrative data completely in lieu of medical record review to maximize the quality of adjudication with finite resources.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02475850).

BackgroundWe describe the recruitment of participants for Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE), a large pragmatic cluster randomized trial that is testing the effectiveness of a multifactorial intervention to prevent serious fall injuries. Eligible persons were 70 years or older, community-living, and at increased risk for serious fall injuries. The modified goal was to recruit 5,322 participants over 20 months from 86 primary care practices within 10 diverse health care systems across the United States.MethodsThe at-risk population was identified using two distinct but complementary screening strategies that included three questions administered centrally via the mail (nine sites) or in the clinic (one site), while recruitment was completed centrally by staff at Yale.ResultsFor central screening, 226,603 letters mailed to 135,118 patients yielded 28,719 positive screens (12.7% of those mailed and 46.5% of the 61,729 returned). In the clinic, 22,537 screens were completed, leading to 5,732 positive screens (25.4%). Of the 34,451 patients who screened positive for high risk of serious fall injuries, 31,872 were sent a recruitment packet and, of these, 5,451 (17.1%) were enrolled over 20 months (mean age: 80 years; 62% female). The participation rate was 34.0% among eligible patients. The enrollment yields were 3.6% (vs 5% projected) for each patient screened centrally, despite multiple screens, and 10.5% (vs 33.9% projected) for each positive clinic screen.ConclusionsDespite lower-than-expected yields, the STRIDE Study exceeded its modified recruitment goal. If the STRIDE intervention is found to be effective, the two distinct strategies for identifying a high-risk population of older persons could be implemented by most health care systems.

Background: Cognitive impairment is strongly associated with atrial fibrillation (AF). Rate and rhythm control are the two treatment strategies for AF and the effect of treatment strategy on risk of cognitive decline and frailty is not well established. We sought to determine how treatment strategy affects geriatric‐centered outcomes. Methods: The Systematic Assessment of Geriatric Elements‐AF (SAGE‐AF) was a prospective, observational, cohort study. Older adults with AF were prospectively enrolled between 2016 and 2018 and followed longitudinally for 2 years. In a non‐randomized fashion, participants were grouped by rate or rhythm control treatment strategy based on clinical treatment at enrollment. Baseline characteristics were compared. Longitudinal binary mixed models were used to compare treatment strategy with respect to change in cognitive function and frailty status. Cognitive function and frailty status were assessed with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Battery and Fried frailty phenotype tools. Results: 972 participants (mean age = 75, SD = 6.8; 49% female, 87% non‐Hispanic white) completed baseline examination and 2‐year follow‐up. 408 (42%) were treated with rate control and 564 (58%) with rhythm control. The patient characteristics of the two groups were different at baseline. Participants in the rate control group were older, more likely to have persistent AF, prior stroke, be treated with warfarin and have baseline cognitive impairment. After adjusting for baseline differences, participants treated with rate control were 1.5 times more likely to be cognitively impaired over 2 years (adjusted OR: 1.47, 95% CI:1.12, 1.98) and had a greater decline in cognitive function (adjusted estimate: −0.59 (0.23), p < 0.01) in comparison to rhythm control. Frailty did not vary between the treatment strategies. Conclusions: Among those who had 2‐year follow‐up in non‐randomized observational cohort, the decision to rate control AF in older adults was associated with increased odds of decline in cognitive function but not frailty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundFall injuries are a major cause of morbidity and mortality among older adults. We describe the design of a pragmatic trial to compare the effectiveness of an evidence-based, patient-centered multifactorial fall injury prevention strategy to an enhanced usual care.MethodsStrategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) is a 40-month cluster-randomized, parallel-group, superiority, pragmatic trial being conducted at 86 primary care practices in 10 health care systems across United States. The 86 practices were randomized to intervention or control group using covariate-based constrained randomization, stratified by health care system. Participants are community-living persons, ≥70 years, at increased risk for serious fall injuries. The intervention is a comanagement model in which a nurse Falls Care Manager performs multifactorial risk assessments, develops individualized care plans, which include surveillance, follow-up evaluation, and intervention strategies. Control group receives enhanced usual care, with clinicians and patients receiving evidence-based information on falls prevention. Primary outcome is serious fall injuries, operationalized as those leading to medical attention (nonvertebral fractures, joint dislocation, head injury, lacerations, and other major sequelae). Secondary outcomes include all fall injuries, all falls, and well-being (concern for falling; anxiety and depressive symptoms; physical function and disability). Target sample size was 5,322 participants to provide 90% power to detect 20% reduction in primary outcome rate relative to control.ResultsTrial enrolled 5,451 subjects in 20 months. Intervention and follow-up are ongoing.ConclusionsThe findings of the STRIDE study will have important clinical and policy implications for the prevention of fall injuries in older adults.

Anxiety and depression are associated with worse outcomes in several cardiovascular conditions, but it is unclear whether they affect outcomes in atrial fibrillation (AF). In a large diverse population of adults with AF, we evaluated the association of diagnosed anxiety and/or depression with stroke and bleeding outcomes. The Cardiovascular Research Network WAVE (Community-Based Control and Persistence of Warfarin Therapy and Associated Rates and Predictors of Adverse Clinical Events in Atrial Fibrillation and Venous Thromboembolism) Study included adults with AF newly starting warfarin between 2004 and 2007 within 5 health delivery systems in the United States. Diagnosed anxiety and depression and other patient characteristics were identified from electronic health records. We identified stroke and bleeding outcomes from hospitalization databases using validated International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9), codes. We used multivariable Cox regression to assess the relation between anxiety and/or depression with outcomes after adjustment for stroke and bleeding risk factors. In 25 570 adults with AF initiating warfarin, 490 had an ischemic stroke or intracranial hemorrhage (1.52 events per 100 person-years). In multivariable analyses, diagnosed anxiety was associated with a higher adjusted rate of combined ischemic stroke and intracranial hemorrhage (hazard ratio, 1.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.28). Results were not materially changed after additional adjustment for patient-level percentage of time in therapeutic anticoagulation range on warfarin (hazard ratio, 1.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.36). In contrast, neither isolated depression nor combined depression and anxiety were significantly associated with outcomes. Diagnosed anxiety was independently associated with increased risk of combined ischemic stroke and intracranial hemorrhage in adults with AF initiating warfarin that was not explained by differences in risk factors or achieved anticoagulation quality.

Context: Potentially inappropriate prescribing of medications in older adults, particular those with dementia, can lead to adverse drug events including falls and fractures, worsening cognitive impairment, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations. Educational mailings from health plans to patients and their providers to encourage deprescribing conversations may represent an effective, low-cost, "light touch", approach to reducing the burden of potentially inappropriate prescription use in older adults with dementia. Objectives: The objective of the Developing a PRogram to Educate and Sensitize Caregivers to Reduce the Inappropriate Prescription Burden in Elderly with Alzheimer's Disease (D-PRESCRIBE-AD) trial is to evaluate the effect of a health plan based multi-faceted educational outreach intervention to community dwelling patients with dementia who are currently prescribed sedative/hypnotics, antipsychotics, or strong anticholinergics. Methods: The D-PRESCRIBE-AD is an open-label pragmatic, prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing three arms: 1) educational mailing to both the health plan patient and their prescribing physician (patient plus physician arm, n = 4814); 2) educational mailing to prescribing physician only (physician only arm, n = 4814); and 3) usual care (n = 4814) among patients with dementia enrolled in two large United States based health plans. The primary outcome is the absence of any dispensing of the targeted potentially inappropriate prescription during the 6-month study observation period after a 3-month black out period following the mailing. Secondary outcomes include dose-reduction, polypharmacy, healthcare utilization, mortality and therapeutic switching within targeted drug classes. Conclusion: This large pragmatic RCT will contribute to the evidence base on promoting deprescribing of potentially inappropriate medications among older adults with dementia. If successful, such light touch, inexpensive and highly scalable interventions have the potential to reduce the burden of potentially inappropriate prescribing for patients with dementia. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05147428. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prescribing cascades occur when a drug adverse event is misinterpreted as a new medical condition and a second, potentially unnecessary drug, is prescribed to treat the adverse event. The population‐level consequences of prescribing cascades remain unknown. Methods: This population‐based cohort study used linked health administrative databases in Ontario, Canada. The study included community‐dwelling adults, 66 years of age or older with hypertension and no history of heart failure (HF) or diuretic use in the prior year, newly dispensed a calcium channel blocker (CCB). Individuals subsequently dispensed a diuretic within 90 days of incident CCB dispensing were classified as the prescribing cascade group, and compared to those not dispensed a diuretic, classified as the non‐prescribing cascade group. Those with and without a prescribing cascade were matched one‐to‐one on the propensity score and sex. The primary outcome was a serious adverse event (SAE), which was the composite of emergency room visits and hospitalizations in the 90‐day follow‐up period. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for SAE using an Andersen–Gill recurrent events regression model. Results: Among 39,347 older adults with hypertension and no history of HF who were newly dispensed a CCB, 1881 (4.8%) had a new diuretic dispensed within 90 days after CCB initiation. Compared to the non‐prescribing cascade group, those in the prescribing cascade group had higher rates of SAEs (HR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.02–1.43). Conclusions: The CCB‐diuretic prescribing cascade was associated with an increased rate of SAEs, suggesting harm beyond prescribing a second drug therapy. Our study raises awareness of the downstream impact of the CCB‐diuretic prescribing cascade at a population level and provides an opportunity for clinicians who identify this prescribing cascade to review their patients' medications to determine if they can be optimized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundIsolated case reports of gastric ulcers after alendronate sodium use raised concern about the gastroduodenal safety of daily alendronate. This study was conducted to estimate the excess risk of hospitalizations for gastric or duodenal perforations, ulcers, and bleeding associated with alendronate use.Participants and methodsStudy subjects were 6432 men and women, 35 years or older. The subjects were members of 8 health maintenance organizations who were dispensed alendronate from October 1995 through September 1997. There was also a group of 33 176 age-, sex-, and health maintenance organization-matched unexposed persons. Because of concerns that osteoporosis might confound the association between alendronate use and perforation, ulcer, or bleeding, a second comparison group of 9776 women, 60 years or older, who had osteoporotic fractures was assembled. Hospitalizations for gastroduodenal events were identified by discharge diagnosis codes in automated claims records, and confirmed by manual record review.ResultsBased on the 14 confirmed events in the alendronate group and 35 in the unexposed group, the crude incidence rate ratio of gastroduodenal perforation, ulcer, or bleeding for the alendronate cohort was 3.0. The incidence rate ratio was 1.8 (95% confidence interval, 0.8-3.9) after control for prior hospitalizations, comorbidity, and recent exposure to prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and oral corticosteroids. The crude incidence ratio rate for the age, sex, and health maintenance organizations-restricted cohort of alendronate users relative to the fracture cohort was 1.1 and the adjusted incidence rate ratio was 1.1 (95% confidence interval, 0.6-2.2).ConclusionsOsteoporosis and related factors appear to play an important role in the relationship between alendronate use and confirmed gastroduodenal perforation, ulcer, or bleeding; a substantial fraction of the increased risk we observed for alendronate users in the unadjusted analysis was the result of confounding.

The automated health plan data and data from medical chart abstractions from eight large health maintenance organizations were used to evaluate the positive predictive values (PPVs) of the International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision (ICD-9) codes for cases of peptic ulcers and upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Overall, 207 of 884 cases of peptic ulcers and upper gastrointestinal bleeding (23%) were confirmed by surgery, endoscopy, X-ray, or autopsy. The PPVs were 66% for hospitalizations with codes for duodenal ulcer (ICD-9-CM 532), 61% for gastric/gastrojejunal ulcer (ICD-9-CM 531, 534), 1% for peptic ulcer (ICD-9-CM 533), and 9% for gastrointestinal hemorrhage (ICD-9-CM578). The overall and diagnostic category-specific PPVs were generally similar for the various HMOs. This study, using data from a large number of health plans located in different geographical regions, underscores the importance of evaluating the accuracy of the diagnoses from automated health plan databases.