COVID-19 pandemic and mortality in nursing homes across USA and Europe up to October 2021

Purpose We compared the prevalence of COVID-19 and related mortality in nursing homes (NHs) in 14 countries until October 2021. We explored the relationship between COVID-19 mortality in NHs with the average size of NHs and with the COVID-19 deaths at a population level. Methods The total number of COVID-19 cases and COVID-19-related deaths in all NHs as well as the total number of NHs and NH beds were provided by representatives of 14 countries. The population level respective figures in each country were provided up to October 2021. Results There was a wide variation in prevalence of COVID-19 cases and deaths between countries. We observed a significant correlation between COVID-19 deaths in NHs and that of the total population and between the mean size of NHs and COVID-19 deaths. Conclusion Side-by-side comparisons between countries allow international sharing of good practice to better enable future pandemic preparedness.Peer reviewe

COVID-19 pandemic and mortality in nursing homes across USA and Europe up to October 2021

Purpose We compared the prevalence of COVID-19 and related mortality in nursing homes (NHs) in 14 countries until October 2021. We explored the relationship between COVID-19 mortality in NHs with the average size of NHs and with the COVID-19 deaths at a population level. Methods The total number of COVID-19 cases and COVID-19-related deaths in all NHs as well as the total number of NHs and NH beds were provided by representatives of 14 countries. The population level respective figures in each country were provided up to October 2021. Results There was a wide variation in prevalence of COVID-19 cases and deaths between countries. We observed a significant correlation between COVID-19 deaths in NHs and that of the total population and between the mean size of NHs and COVID-19 deaths. Conclusion Side-by-side comparisons between countries allow international sharing of good practice to better enable future pandemic preparedness.Peer reviewe

How clinical practitioners assess frailty in their daily practice: an international survey

peer reviewedNTRODUCTION: Various operational definitions have been proposed to assess the frailty condition among older individuals. Our objective was to assess how practitioners measure the geriatric syndrome of frailty in their daily routine. METHODS: An online survey was sent to national geriatric societies affiliated to the European Union Geriatric Medicine Society (EUGMS) and to members of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO). RESULTS: A total of 388 clinicians from 44 countries answered to the survey. Most of them were medical doctors (93%), and their primary field of practice was geriatrics (83%). Two hundred and five clinicians (52.8%) always assessed frailty in their daily practice, 38.1% reported to "sometimes" measure it, and 9.1% never assess it. A substantial proportion of clinicians (64.9%) diagnose frailty using more than one instrument. The most widely used tool was the gait speed test, adopted by 43.8% of the clinicians, followed by clinical frailty scale (34.3%), the SPPB test (30.2%), the frailty phenotype (26.8%) and the frailty index (16.8%). CONCLUSION: A variety of tools is used to assess frailty of older patients in clinical practice highlighting the need for standardisation and guidelines

Sarcopenia definitions as predictors of fracture risk independent of FRAX, falls and BMD in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Study: A meta-analysis

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-derived appendicular lean mass/height2 (ALM/ht2) is the most commonly used estimate of muscle mass in the assessment of sarcopenia, but its predictive value for fracture is substantially attenuated by femoral neck (fn) bone mineral density (BMD). We investigated predictive value of 11 sarcopenia definitions for incident fracture, independent of fnBMD, fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX®) probability, and prior falls, using an extension of Poisson regression in US, Sweden, and Hong Kong Osteoporois Fractures in Men Study (MrOS) cohorts. Definitions tested were those of Baumgartner and Delmonico (ALM/ht2 only), Morley, the International Working Group on Sarcopenia, European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP1 and 2), Asian Working Group on Sarcopenia, Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH) 1 and 2 (using ALM/body mass index [BMI], incorporating muscle strength and/or physical performance measures plus ALM/ht2), and Sarcopenia Definitions and Outcomes Consortium (gait speed and grip strength). Associations were adjusted for age and time since baseline and reported as hazard ratio (HR) for first incident fracture, here major osteoporotic fracture (MOF; clinical vertebral, hip, distal forearm, proximal humerus). Further analyses adjusted additionally for FRAX-MOF probability (n = 7531; calculated ± fnBMD), prior falls (y/n), or fnBMD T-score. Results were synthesized by meta-analysis. In 5660 men in USA, 2764 Sweden and 1987 Hong Kong (mean ages 73.5, 75.4, and 72.4 years, respectively), sarcopenia prevalence ranged from 0.5% to 35%. Sarcopenia status, by all definitions except those of FNIH, was associated with incident MOF (HR = 1.39 to 2.07). Associations were robust to adjustment for prior falls or FRAX probability (without fnBMD); adjustment for fnBMD T-score attenuated associations. EWGSOP2 severe sarcopenia (incorporating chair stand time, gait speed, and grip strength plus ALM) was most predictive, albeit at low prevalence, and appeared only modestly influenced by inclusion of fnBMD. In conclusion, the predictive value for fracture of sarcopenia definitions based on ALM is reduced by adjustment for fnBMD but strengthened by additional inclusion of physical performance measures. © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Measuring health-related quality of life in sarcopenia: summary of the SarQoL psychometric properties

Patient perspectives are now widely recognized as a key element in the evaluation of health interventions. Therefore, the provision of specific and validated Patient Reported Outcome Measures that emphasize the lived experience of patients suffering from specific diseases is very important. In the field of sarcopenia, the only validated specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instrument available is the Sarcopenia Quality of Life questionnaire (SarQoL). This self-administrated HRQoL questionnaire, developed in 2015, consists of 55 items arranged into 22 questions and has currently been translated into 35 languages. Nineteen validation studies performed on SarQoL have consensually confirmed the capacity of SarQoL to detect difference in HRQoL between older people with and without sarcopenia, its reliability and its validity. Two further observational studies have also indicated its responsiveness to change. A short form SarQoL, including only 14 items has further been developed and validated to reduce the potential burden of administration. Research on the psychometric properties of SarQoL questionnaire is still encouraged as the responsiveness to change of SarQoL has not yet been measured in the context of interventional studies, as limited prospective data currently exist and as there is still not cut-off score to define a low HRQoL. In addition, SarQoL has mainly been used in community-dwelling older individuals with sarcopenia and would benefit to be studied in other types of populations. This review aims to provide to researchers, clinicians, regulators, pharmaceutical industries and other stakeholders a clear summary of comprehensive evidence on the SarQoL questionnaire published up to January 2023Query

Transforming the future of ageing

The European population is ageing rapidly: its median age is the highest in the world. The topic of ageing has received significant attention in recent years, as is evident in the multiple international reports on ageing published during the last five years and the existence of at least eight active working groups on ageing at the EU level. The SAPEA Working Group on Transforming the Future of Ageing aims to provide a scientific perspective to address the question of what policies at the EU level could support the member states in their response to the current and future opportunities and challenges posed by ageing. In this project, SAPEA assembled a large multi-disciplinary working group, with world-leading expertise in the biomedical, human, social and engineering sciences. The Federation of European Academies of Medicine network led the project. The resulting report reflects not only the outstanding knowledge of the experts, but also their exemplary commitment to the voluntary task of collaborating in an interdisciplinary way and bringing the best and latest scientific knowledge into evidence-based policymaking. The report aims to make a unique contribution from a broad public health standpoint to a complex topic in a way that complements other related resources, thereby providing evidence-based science advice for the highest policy level in Europe. In particular, the working group has made a conscious effort not to duplicate the same aspects of ageing covered in existing reports. Likewise, by adopting a multi-disciplinary approach in the present report, the working group has distinguished itself from other EU ageing-related initiatives. These include the European Innovative partnership for Active and Healthy Ageing, Horizon 2020 projects in response to identified societal challenges posed by ageing, and the EU health programme managed by DG Santé focusing on healthy ageing, as well as existing networks funded by the EU, such as Innovation, Futurage, Mopact, Nestpar, and SHARE . The choice of topics covered in this report, or excluded, is based upon the expressed interest of policymakers throughout the scoping process, e.g. health, social affairs, employment, and technology. SAPEA is an integral part of the European Commission’s Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM). This Evidence Review Report is presented to the European Group of Chief Scientific Advisors, informing their Scientific Opinion which will be published later in 2019. Both this report and the Scientific Opinion are delivered directly to the College of Commissioners, and will be used for planning and policymaking. By such means, the best available science, distilled and analysed by the leading experts in Europe, should have a direct and tangible impact on decisions taken by the European Commission which influences the lives of some 500 million people across our continent

Role of Vitamin D supplementation in the management of musculoskeletal diseases: update from an European Society of Clinical and Economical Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) working group

Vitamin D is a key component for optimal growth and for calcium–phosphate homeostasis. Skin photosynthesis is the main source of vitamin D. Limited sun exposure and insufficient dietary vitamin D supply justify vitamin D supplementation in certain age groups. In older adults, recommended doses for vitamin D supplementation vary between 200 and 2000 IU/day, to achieve a goal of circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (calcifediol) of at least 50 nmol/L. The target level depends on the population being supplemented, the assessed system, and the outcome. Several recent large randomized trials with oral vitamin D regimens varying between 2000 and 100,000 IU/month and mostly conducted in vitamin D-replete and healthy individuals have failed to detect any efficacy of these approaches for the prevention of fracture and falls. Considering the well-recognized major musculoskeletal disorders associated with severe vitamin D deficiency and taking into account a possible biphasic effects of vitamin D on fracture and fall risks, an European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) working group convened, carefully reviewed, and analyzed the meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials on the effects of vitamin D on fracture risk, falls or osteoarthritis, and came to the conclusion that 1000 IU daily should be recommended in patients at increased risk of vitamin D deficiency. The group also addressed the identification of patients possibly benefitting from a vitamin D loading dose to achieve early 25-hydroxyvitamin D therapeutic level or from calcifediol administration