Search

Objectives: Before being used in clinical practice, a prediction model should be tested in patients whose data were not used in model development. Previously, we developed the ADFICE_IT models for predicting any fall and recurrent falls, referred as Any_fall and Recur_fall. In this study, we externally validated the models and compared their clinical value to a practical screening strategy where patients are screened for falls history alone. Design: Retrospective, combined analysis of 2 prospective cohorts. Setting and Participants: Data were included of 1125 patients (aged ≥65 years) who visited the geriatrics department or the emergency department. Methods: We evaluated the models' discrimination using the C-statistic. Models were updated using logistic regression if calibration intercept or slope values deviated significantly from their ideal values. Decision curve analysis was applied to compare the models’ clinical value (ie, net benefit) against that of falls history for different decision thresholds. Results: During the 1-year follow-up, 428 participants (42.7%) endured 1 or more falls, and 224 participants (23.1%) endured a recurrent fall (≥2 falls). C-statistic values were 0.66 (95% CI 0.63-0.69) and 0.69 (95% CI 0.65-0.72) for the Any_fall and Recur_fall models, respectively. Any_fall overestimated the fall risk and we therefore updated only its intercept whereas Recur_fall showed good calibration and required no update. Compared with falls history, Any_fall and Recur_fall showed greater net benefit for decision thresholds of 35% to 60% and 15% to 45%, respectively. Conclusions and Implications: The models performed similarly in this data set of geriatric outpatients as in the development sample. This suggests that fall-risk assessment tools that were developed in community-dwelling older adults may perform well in geriatric outpatients. We found that in geriatric outpatients the models have greater clinical value across a wide range of decision thresho, Applied Ergonomics and Design

Background: Inappropriate prescribing is associated with negative patient outcomes. In hospitalized patients, the use of Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) may reduce inappropriate prescribing and thereby improve patient-related outcomes. However, recently published large clinical trials (OPERAM and SENATOR) have shown negative results on the use of CDSSs and patient outcomes and strikingly low acceptance of recommendations. Objective: The purpose of the present study was to investigate the use of a CDSS in a real-life clinical setting of hospitalized older patients. As such, we report on the real-life pattern of this in-hospital implemented CDSS, including (i) whether generated alerts were resolved; (ii) whether a recorded action by the pharmacist led to an improved number of resolved alerts; and (iii) the natural course of generated alerts, in particular of those in the non-intervention group; as these data are largely lacking in current studies. Methods: Hospitalized patients, aged 60 years and older, admitted to Zuyderland Medical Centre, the Netherlands, in 2018 were included. The evaluation of the CDSS was investigated using a database used for standard care. Alongside demographic and clinical data, we also collected the total numbers of CDSS alerts, the number of alerts ‘handled’ by the pharmacist, those that resulted in an action by the pharmacist, and finally the outcome of the alerts at day 1 and day 3 after the alert was generated. Results: A total of 3574 unique hospitalized patients, mean age 76.7 (SD 8.3) years and 53% female, were included. From these patients, 8073 alerts were generated, of which 7907 (97.9% of total) were handled by the pharmacist (day 1). In 51.6% of the alerts handled by the pharmacist, an action was initiated, resulting in 36.1% of the alerts resolved after day 1, compared with 27.3% if the pharmacist did not perform an action (p < 0.001). On day 3, in 52.6% of the alerts an action by the pharmacist was initiated, re

Background: Use of fall prevention strategies requires detection of high-risk patients. Our goal was to develop prediction models for falls and recurrent falls in community-dwelling older adults and to improve upon previous models by using a large, pooled sample and by considering a wide range of candidate predictors, including medications. Methods: Harmonized data from 2 Dutch (LASA, B-PROOF) and 1 German cohort (ActiFE Ulm) of adults aged ≥65 years were used to fit 2 logistic regression models: one for predicting any fall and another for predicting recurrent falls over 1 year. Model generalizability was assessed using internal-external cross-validation. Results: Data of 5 722 participants were included in the analyses, of whom 1 868 (34.7%) endured at least 1 fall and 702 (13.8%) endured a recurrent fall. Positive predictors for any fall were: educational status, depression, verbal fluency, functional limitations, falls history, and use of antiepileptics and drugs for urinary frequency and incontinence; negative predictors were: body mass index (BMI), grip strength, systolic blood pressure, and smoking. Positive predictors for recurrent falls were: educational status, visual impairment, functional limitations, urinary incontinence, falls history, and use of anti-Parkinson drugs, antihistamines, and drugs for urinary frequency and incontinence; BMI was a negative predictor. The average C-statistic value was 0.65 for the model for any fall and 0.70 for the model for recurrent falls. Conclusion: Compared with previous models, the model for recurrent falls performed favorably while the model for any fall performed similarly. Validation and optimization of the models in other populations are warranted.

Background: Use of fall prevention strategies requires detection of high-risk patients. Our goal was to develop prediction models for falls and recurrent falls in community-dwelling older adults and to improve upon previous models by using a large, pooled sample and by considering a wide range of candidate predictors, including medications. Methods: Harmonized data from 2 Dutch (LASA, B-PROOF) and 1 German cohort (ActiFE Ulm) of adults aged ≥65 years were used to fit 2 logistic regression models: one for predicting any fall and another for predicting recurrent falls over 1 year. Model generalizability was assessed using internal-external cross-validation. Results: Data of 5 722 participants were included in the analyses, of whom 1 868 (34.7%) endured at least 1 fall and 702 (13.8%) endured a recurrent fall. Positive predictors for any fall were: educational status, depression, verbal fluency, functional limitations, falls history, and use of antiepileptics and drugs for urinary frequency and incontinence; negative predictors were: body mass index (BMI), grip strength, systolic blood pressure, and smoking. Positive predictors for recurrent falls were: educational status, visual impairment, functional limitations, urinary incontinence, falls history, and use of anti-Parkinson drugs, antihistamines, and drugs for urinary frequency and incontinence; BMI was a negative predictor. The average C-statistic value was 0.65 for the model for any fall and 0.70 for the model for recurrent falls. Conclusion: Compared with previous models, the model for recurrent falls performed favorably while the model for any fall performed similarly. Validation and optimization of the models in other populations are warranted.

Background: Due to ageing of the population the incidence of multimorbidity and polypharmacy is rising. Polypharmacy is a risk factor for medication-related (re)admission and therefore places a significant burden on the healthcare system. The reported incidence of medication-related (re)admissions varies widely due to the lack of a clear definition. Some medications are known to increase the risk for medication-related admission and are therefore published in the triggerlist of the Dutch guideline for Polypharmacy in older patients. Different interventions to support medication optimization have been studied to reduce medication-related (re)admissions. However, the optimal template of medication optimization is still unknown, which contributes to the large heterogeneity of their effect on hospital readmissions. Therefore, we implemented a clinical decision support system (CDSS) to optimize medication lists and investigate whether continuous use of a CDSS reduces the number of hospital readmissions in older patients, who previously have had an unplanned probably medication-related hospitalization. Methods: The CHECkUP study is a multicentre randomized study in older (≥60 years) patients with an unplanned hospitalization, polypharmacy (≥5 medications) and using at least two medications from the triggerlist, from Zuyderland Medical Centre and Maastricht University Medical Centre+ in the Netherlands. Patients will be randomized. The intervention consists of continuous (weekly) use of a CDSS, which generates a Medication Optimization Profile, which will be sent to the patient’s general practitioner and pharmacist. The control group will receive standard care. The primary outcome is hospital readmission within 1 year after study inclusion. Secondary outcomes are one-year mortality, number of emergency department visits, nursing home admissions, time to hospital readmissions and we will evaluate the quality of life and socio-economic status. Discussion: This study is ex

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the scarcity of resources has necessitated triage of critical care for patients with the disease. In patients aged 65 years and older, triage decisions are regularly based on degree of frailty measured by the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). However, the CFS could also be useful in patients younger than 65 years. We aimed to examine the association between CFS score and hospital mortality and between CFS score and admission to intensive care in adult patients of all ages with COVID-19 across Europe. Methods: This analysis was part of the COVID Medication (COMET) study, an international, multicentre, retrospective observational cohort study in 63 hospitals in 11 countries in Europe. Eligible patients were aged 18 years and older, had been admitted to hospital, and either tested positive by PCR for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or were judged to have a high clinical likelihood of having SARS-CoV-2 infection by the local COVID-19 expert team. CFS was used to assess level of frailty: fit (CFS 1–3), mildly frail (CFS 4–5), or frail (CFS 6–9). The primary outcome was hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was admission to intensive care. Data were analysed using a multivariable binary logistic regression model adjusted for covariates (age, sex, number of drugs prescribed, and type of drug class as a proxy for comorbidities). Findings: Between March 30 and July 15, 2020, 2434 patients (median age 68 years [IQR 55–77]; 1480 [61%] men, 954 [30%] women) had CFS scores available and were included in the analyses. In the total sample and in patients aged 65 years and older, frail patients and mildly frail patients had a significantly higher risk of hospital mortality than fit patients (total sample: CFS 6–9 vs CFS 1–3 odds ratio [OR] 2·71 [95% CI 2·04–3·60], p<0·0001 and CFS 4–5 vs CFS 1–3 OR 1·54 [1·16–2·06], p=0·0030; age

Various theories about drugs such as ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in relation to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 are circulating in both mainstream media and medical literature. These are based on the fact that ACE2 facilitates SARS-CoV-2 cell invasion via binding of a viral spike protein to ACE2. However, the effect of ACE inhibitors, ARBs and other drugs on ACE2 is unclear and all theories are based on conflicting evidence mainly from animal studies. Therefore, clinical evidence is urgently needed. The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between use of these drugs on clinical outcome of patients with COVID-19. Patients will be included from several hospitals in Europe. Data will be collected in a user-friendly database (Digitalis) on an external server. Analyses will be adjusted for sex, age and presence of cardiovascular disease, hypertension and diabetes. These results will enable more rational choices for randomised controlled trials for preventive and therapeutic strategies in COVID-19.