Informant-based screening tools for dementia: an overview of systematic reviews

Background: Informant-based questionnaires may have utility for cognitive impairment or dementia screening. Reviews describing the accuracy of respective questionnaires are available, but their focus on individual questionnaires precludes comparisons across tools. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews to assess the comparative accuracy of informant questionnaires and identify areas where evidence is lacking. Methods: We searched six databases to identify systematic reviews describing diagnostic test accuracy of informant questionnaires for cognitive impairment or dementia. We pooled sensitivity and specificity data for each questionnaire and used network approaches to compare accuracy estimates across the differing tests. We used grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) to evaluate the overall certainty of evidence. Finally, we created an evidence ‘heat-map’, describing the availability of accurate data for individual tests in different populations and settings. Results: We identified 25 reviews, consisting of 93 studies and 13 informant questionnaires. Pooled analysis (37 studies; 11 052 participants) ranked the eight-item interview to ascertain dementia (AD8) highest for sensitivity [90%; 95% credible intervals (CrI) = 82–95; ‘best-test’ probability = 36]; while the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) was most specific (81%; 95% CrI = 66–90; ‘best-test’ probability = 29%). GRADE-based evaluation of evidence suggested certainty was ‘low’ overall. Our heat-map indicated that only AD8 and IQCODE have been extensively evaluated and most studies have been in the secondary care settings. Conclusions: AD8 and IQCODE appear to be valid questionnaires for cognitive impairment or dementia assessment. Other available informant-based cognitive screening questionnaires lack evidence to justify their use at present. Evidence on the accuracy of available tools in primary care settings and with specific populations is required

Revising Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, criteria for the bipolar disorders: Phase I of the AREDOC project

Objective: To derive new criteria sets for defining manic and hypomanic episodes (and thus for defining the bipolar I and II disorders), an international Task Force was assembled and termed AREDOC reflecting its role of Assessment, Revision and Evaluation of DSM and other Operational Criteria. This paper reports on the first phase of its deliberations and interim criteria recommendations. Method: The first stage of the process consisted of reviewing Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, and recent International Classification of Diseases criteria, identifying their limitations and generating modified criteria sets for further in-depth consideration. Task Force members responded to recommendations for modifying criteria and from these the most problematic issues were identified. Results: Principal issues focussed on by Task Force members were how best to differentiate mania and hypomania, how to judge ‘impairment’ (both in and of itself and allowing that functioning may sometimes improve during hypomanic episodes) and concern that rejecting some criteria (e.g. an imposed duration period) might risk false-positive diagnoses of the bipolar disorders. Conclusion: This first-stage report summarises the clinical opinions of international experts in the diagnosis and management of the bipolar disorders, allowing readers to contemplate diagnostic parameters that may influence their clinical decisions. The findings meaningfully inform subsequent Task Force stages (involving a further commentary stage followed by an empirical study) that are expected to generate improved symptom criteria for diagnosing the bipolar I and II disorders with greater precision and to clarify whether they differ dimensionally or categorically

The effect of frailty on survival in patients with COVID-19 (COPE): a multicentre, European, observational cohort study

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has placed unprecedented strain on health-care systems. Frailty is being used in clinical decision making for patients with COVID-19, yet the prevalence and effect of frailty in people with COVID-19 is not known. In the COVID-19 in Older PEople (COPE) study we aimed to establish the prevalence of frailty in patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to hospital and investigate its association with mortality and duration of hospital stay. Methods This was an observational cohort study conducted at ten hospitals in the UK and one in Italy. All adults (≥18 years) admitted to participating hospitals with COVID-19 were included. Patients with incomplete hospital records were excluded. The study analysed routinely generated hospital data for patients with COVID-19. Frailty was assessed by specialist COVID-19 teams using the clinical frailty scale (CFS) and patients were grouped according to their score (1–2=fit; 3–4=vulnerable, but not frail; 5–6=initial signs of frailty but with some degree of independence; and 7–9=severe or very severe frailty). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality (time from hospital admission to mortality and day-7 mortality). Findings Between Feb 27, and April 28, 2020, we enrolled 1564 patients with COVID-19. The median age was 74 years (IQR 61–83); 903 (57·7%) were men and 661 (42·3%) were women; 425 (27·2%) had died at data cutoff (April 28, 2020). 772 (49·4%) were classed as frail (CFS 5–8) and 27 (1·7%) were classed as terminally ill (CFS 9). Compared with CFS 1–2, the adjusted hazard ratios for time from hospital admission to death were 1·55 (95% CI 1·00–2·41) for CFS 3–4, 1·83 (1·15–2·91) for CFS 5–6, and 2·39 (1·50–3·81) for CFS 7–9, and adjusted odds ratios for day-7 mortality were 1·22 (95% CI 0·63–2·38) for CFS 3–4, 1·62 (0·81–3·26) for CFS 5–6, and 3·12 (1·56–6·24) for CFS 7–9. Interpretation In a large population of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, disease outcomes were better predicted by frailty than either age or comorbidity. Our results support the use of CFS to inform decision making about medical care in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19

Melanocortin-1 Receptor, Skin Cancer and Phenotypic Characteristics (M-SKIP) Project: Study Design and Methods for Pooling Results of Genetic Epidemiological Studies

Background: For complex diseases like cancer, pooled-analysis of individual data represents a powerful tool to investigate the joint contribution of genetic, phenotypic and environmental factors to the development of a disease. Pooled-analysis of epidemiological studies has many advantages over meta-analysis, and preliminary results may be obtained faster and with lower costs than with prospective consortia. Design and methods: Based on our experience with the study design of the Melanocortin-1 receptor (MC1R) gene, SKin cancer and Phenotypic characteristics (M-SKIP) project, we describe the most important steps in planning and conducting a pooled-analysis of genetic epidemiological studies. We then present the statistical analysis plan that we are going to apply, giving particular attention to methods of analysis recently proposed to account for between-study heterogeneity and to explore the joint contribution of genetic, phenotypic and environmental factors in the development of a disease. Within the M-SKIP project, data on 10,959 skin cancer cases and 14,785 controls from 31 international investigators were checked for quality and recoded for standardization. We first proposed to fit the aggregated data with random-effects logistic regression models. However, for the M-SKIP project, a two-stage analysis will be preferred to overcome the problem regarding the availability of different study covariates. The joint contribution of MC1R variants and phenotypic characteristics to skin cancer development will be studied via logic regression modeling. Discussion: Methodological guidelines to correctly design and conduct pooled-analyses are needed to facilitate application of such methods, thus providing a better summary of the actual findings on specific fields

Screening in the community to reduce fractures in older women (SCOOP): a randomised controlled trial

Background Despite effective assessment methods and medications targeting osteoporosis and related fractures, screening for fracture risk is not currently advocated in the UK. We tested whether a community-based screening intervention could reduce fractures in older women. Methods We did a two-arm randomised controlled trial in women aged 70–85 years to compare a screening programme using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) with usual management. Women were recruited from 100 general practitioner (GP) practices in seven regions of the UK: Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester, Norwich, Sheffield, Southampton, and York. We excluded women who were currently on prescription anti-osteoporotic drugs and any individuals deemed to be unsuitable to enter a research study (eg, known dementia, terminally ill, or recently bereaved). The primary outcome was the proportion of individuals who had one or more osteoporosis-related fractures over a 5-year period. In the screening group, treatment was recommended in women identified to be at high risk of hip fracture, according to the FRAX 10-year hip fracture probability. Prespecified secondary outcomes were the proportions of participants who had at least one hip fracture, any clinical fracture, or mortality; and the effect of screening on anxiety and health-related quality of life. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, number ISRCTN 55814835. Findings 12 483 eligible women were identified and participated in the trial, and 6233 women randomly assigned to the screening group between April 15, 2008, and July 2, 2009. Treatment was recommended in 898 (14%) of 6233 women. Use of osteoporosis medication was higher at the end of year 1 in the screening group compared with controls (15% vs 4%), with uptake particularly high (78% at 6 months) in the screening high-risk subgroup. Screening did not reduce the primary outcome of incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures (hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·85–1·03, p=0·178), nor the overall incidence of all clinical fractures (0·94, 0·86–1·03, p=0·183), but screening reduced the incidence of hip fractures (0·72, 0·59–0·89, p=0·002). There was no evidence of differences in mortality, anxiety levels, or quality of life. Interpretation Systematic, community-based screening programme of fracture risk in older women in the UK is feasible, and could be effective in reducing hip fractures. Funding Arthritis Research UK and Medical Research Council

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Prognostic value of estimated glomerular filtration rate in hospitalised older patients (over 65) with COVID-19: a multicentre, European, observational cohort study

Background: The reduced renal function has prognostic significance in COVID-19 and it has been linked to mortality in the general population. Reduced renal function is prevalent in older age and thus we set out to better understand its effect on mortality. Methods: Patient clinical and demographic data was taken from the COVID-19 in Older People (COPE) study during two periods (February–June 2020 and October 2020–March 2021, respectively). Kidney function on admission was measured using estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). The primary outcomes were time to mortality and 28-day mortality. Secondary outcome was length of hospital stay. Data were analysed with multilevel Cox proportional hazards regression, and multilevel logistic regression and adjusted for individual patient clinical and demographic characteristics. Results: One thousand eight hundred two patients (55.0% male; median [IQR] 80 [73–86] years) were included in the study. 28-day mortality was 42.3% (n = 742). 48% (n = 801) had evidence of renal impairment on admission. Using a time-to-event analysis, reduced renal function was associated with increased in-hospital mortality (compared to eGFR ≥ 60 [Stage 1&2]): eGFR 45–59 [Stage 3a] aHR = 1.26 (95%CI 1.02–1.55); eGFR 30–44 [Stage 3b] aHR = 1.41 (95%CI 1.14–1.73); eGFR 1–29 [Stage 4&5] aHR = 1.42 (95%CI 1.13–1.80). In the co-primary outcome of 28-day mortality, mortality was associated with: Stage 3a adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.18 (95%CI 0.88–1.58), Stage 3b aOR = 1.40 (95%CI 1.03–1.89); and Stage 4&5 aOR = 1.65 (95%CI 1.16–2.35). Conclusion: eGFR on admission is a good independent predictor of mortality in hospitalised older patients with COVID-19 population. We found evidence of a dose-response between reduced renal function and increased mortality