The effect of adjusting LDL-cholesterol for Lp(a)-cholesterol on the diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolaemia

BACKGROUND: Familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) diagnostic tools help prioritise patients for genetic testing and include LDL-C estimates commonly calculated using the Friedewald equation. However, cholesterol contributions from lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) can overestimate 'true' LDL-C, leading to potentially inappropriate clinical FH diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: To assess how adjusting LDL-C for Lp(a)-cholesterol affects FH diagnoses using Simon Broome (SB) and Dutch Lipid Clinic Network (DLCN) criteria. METHODS: Adults referred to a tertiary lipid clinic in London, UK were included if they had undergone FH genetic testing based on SB or DLCN criteria. LDL-C was adjusted for Lp(a)-cholesterol using estimated cholesterol contents of 17.3%, 30% and 45%, and the effects of these adjustments on reclassification to 'unlikely' FH and diagnostic accuracy were determined. RESULTS: Depending on the estimated cholesterol content applied, LDL-C adjustment reclassified 8-23% and 6-17% of patients to 'unlikely' FH using SB and DLCN criteria, respectively. The highest reclassification rates were observed following 45% adjustment in mutation-negative patients with higher Lp(a) levels. This led to an improvement in diagnostic accuracy (46% to 57% with SB, and 32% to 44% with DLCN following 45% adjustment) through increased specificity. However all adjustment factors led to erroneous reclassification of mutation-positive patients to 'unlikely' FH. CONCLUSION: LDL-C adjustment for Lp(a)-cholesterol improves the accuracy of clinical FH diagnostic tools. Adopting this approach would reduce unnecessary genetic testing but also incorrectly reclassify mutation-positive patients. Health economic analysis is needed to balance the risks of over- and under-diagnosis before LDL-C adjustments for Lp(a) can be recommended

Increasing frailty is associated with higher prevalence and reduced recognition of delirium in older hospitalised inpatients: results of a multi-centre study

Purpose Delirium is a neuropsychiatric disorder delineated by an acute change in cognition, attention, and consciousness. It is common, particularly in older adults, but poorly recognised. Frailty is the accumulation of deficits conferring an increased risk of adverse outcomes. We set out to determine how severity of frailty, as measured using the CFS, affected delirium rates, and recognition in hospitalised older people in the United Kingdom. Methods Adults over 65 years were included in an observational multi-centre audit across UK hospitals, two prospective rounds, and one retrospective note review. Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), delirium status, and 30-day outcomes were recorded. Results The overall prevalence of delirium was 16.3% (483). Patients with delirium were more frail than patients without delirium (median CFS 6 vs 4). The risk of delirium was greater with increasing frailty [OR 2.9 (1.8–4.6) in CFS 4 vs 1–3; OR 12.4 (6.2–24.5) in CFS 8 vs 1–3]. Higher CFS was associated with reduced recognition of delirium (OR of 0.7 (0.3–1.9) in CFS 4 compared to 0.2 (0.1–0.7) in CFS 8). These risks were both independent of age and dementia. Conclusion We have demonstrated an incremental increase in risk of delirium with increasing frailty. This has important clinical implications, suggesting that frailty may provide a more nuanced measure of vulnerability to delirium and poor outcomes. However, the most frail patients are least likely to have their delirium diagnosed and there is a significant lack of research into the underlying pathophysiology of both of these common geriatric syndromes

Increasing frailty is associated with higher prevalence and reduced recognition of delirium in older hospitalised inpatients: results of a multi-centre study

Purpose: Delirium is a neuropsychiatric disorder delineated by an acute change in cognition, attention, and consciousness. It is common, particularly in older adults, but poorly recognised. Frailty is the accumulation of deficits conferring an increased risk of adverse outcomes. We set out to determine how severity of frailty, as measured using the CFS, affected delirium rates, and recognition in hospitalised older people in the United Kingdom. Methods: Adults over 65 years were included in an observational multi-centre audit across UK hospitals, two prospective rounds, and one retrospective note review. Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), delirium status, and 30-day outcomes were recorded. Results: The overall prevalence of delirium was 16.3% (483). Patients with delirium were more frail than patients without delirium (median CFS 6 vs 4). The risk of delirium was greater with increasing frailty [OR 2.9 (1.8–4.6) in CFS 4 vs 1–3; OR 12.4 (6.2–24.5) in CFS 8 vs 1–3]. Higher CFS was associated with reduced recognition of delirium (OR of 0.7 (0.3–1.9) in CFS 4 compared to 0.2 (0.1–0.7) in CFS 8). These risks were both independent of age and dementia. Conclusion: We have demonstrated an incremental increase in risk of delirium with increasing frailty. This has important clinical implications, suggesting that frailty may provide a more nuanced measure of vulnerability to delirium and poor outcomes. However, the most frail patients are least likely to have their delirium diagnosed and there is a significant lack of research into the underlying pathophysiology of both of these common geriatric syndromes

Practices, Issues and Possibilities at the interface between Geriatrics and Palliative Care: An Exploratory study (InGaP)

Introduction: With the expansion of palliative care into non-malignant conditions, there is an increasing emphasis on inter-disciplinary working between geriatric and palliative care teams. This inter-disciplinary working has evolved organically and more needs to be known about current working practices. This is of policy and clinical interest as the elderly patient population continues to grow. Methods: An exploratory qualitative interview study was undertaken of end-of-life care for older in-patients in a large London NHS Trust. Staff from palliative care and geriatric medical and nursing teams and patients and carers were contacted for interview. 30 semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with staff, two with patients and five with carers. Questions covered: recent examples where teams worked together; staff perceptions of collaboration and issues; patient and carer perceptions of clarity as to who was providing care. Interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed focusing on: examples of successful collaboration; areas of tension, duplication or confusion about responsibilities; suggestions for future practice. Results: Participants were overwhelmingly positive about collaboration between the teams. Examples of what currently works well were: the referral process to the palliative care team; inter-team communication and use of face-to-face handovers; unity between the teams when communicating with patients and families. Areas of concern and for future development were: embedding palliative care within multidisciplinary team meetings within the ward; the need for continual on-ward education given rotation of junior medical staff; improving collaboration between palliative care, physiotherapy and occupational therapy; patients’ and carers’ lack of awareness of the different teams and whether this has a detrimental effect on their care. Conclusions: There is evidence of strong collaborative working between the teams however this study provides insights into where things could be improved. The study has shown the feasibility of the methodology, particularly when interviewing patients and carers during a difficult time in their care. An exploration of these relationships in other settings is required to determine if the same themes arise with a view to inform national guidelines and policy to improve care towards the end of life