Subnormal vitamin B12 concentrations and anaemia in older people: a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pernicious anaemia is undeniably associated with vitamin B12 deficiency, but the association between subnormal vitamin B12 concentrations and anaemia in older people is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the association between subnormal vitamin B12 concentrations and anaemia in older people.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Clinical queries for aetiology and treatment in bibliographic databases (PubMed [01/1949-10/2009]; EMBASE [01/1980-10/2009]) were used. Reference lists were checked for additional relevant studies. Observational studies (≥50 participants) and randomized placebo-controlled intervention trials (RCTs) were considered.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>25 studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-one observational cross-sectional studies (total number of participants n = 16185) showed inconsistent results. In one longitudinal observational study, low vitamin B12 concentrations were not associated with an increased risk of anaemia (total n = 423). The 3 RCTs (total n = 210) were well-designed and showed no effect of vitamin B12 supplementation on haemoglobin concentrations during follow-up in subjects with subnormal vitamin B12 concentrations at the start of the study. Due to large clinical and methodological heterogeneity, statistical pooling of data was not performed.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Evidence of a positive association between a subnormal serum vitamin B12 concentration and anaemia in older people is limited and inconclusive. Further well-designed studies are needed to determine whether subnormal vitamin B12 is a risk factor for anaemia in older people.</p

Effects of a stepped-care intervention programme among older subjects who screened positive for depressive symptoms in general practice: the PROMODE randomised controlled trial

Item does not contain fulltextOBJECTIVES: to determine (cost)-effectiveness of a stepped-care intervention programme among subjects >/= 75 years who screened positive for depressive symptoms in general practice. DESIGN: the pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial with 12-month follow-up. SETTING: sixty-seven Dutch general practices. SUBJECTS: two hundred and thirty-nine subjects >/= 75 years screened positive for untreated depressive symptoms (15-item Geriatric Depression Scale >/= 5). METHODS: usual care (34 practices, 118 subjects) was compared with the stepped-care intervention (33 practices, 121 subjects) consisting of three steps: individual counselling; Coping with Depression course; and-if indicated-referral back to general practitioner to discuss further treatment. Measurements included severity of depressive symptoms [Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)], quality of life, mortality and costs. RESULTS: at baseline subjects mostly were mildly/moderately depressed. At 6 months MADRS scores had improved more in the usual care than the intervention group (-2.9 versus -1.1 points, P=0.032), but not at 12 months (-3.1 versus -4.6, P=0.084). No significant differences were found within two separate age groups (75-79 years and >/= 80 years). In intervention practices, 83% accepted referral to the stepped-care programme, and 19% accepted course participation. The control group appeared to have received more psychological care. CONCLUSIONS: among older subjects who screened positive for depressive symptoms, an offered stepped-care intervention programme was not (cost)-effective compared with usual care, possibly due to a low uptake of the course offer. Trial registration: www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN 71142851v

The influence of the administration method on scores of the 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale in old age

Item does not contain fulltextMany rating scales can be self-administered or interviewer-administered, and the influence of administration method on scores is unclear. We aimed to study this influence on scores of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15), used as a screening instrument in general practice. In two general practices 376 registered patients aged 75 years and older were asked to participate. Exclusion criteria were dementia and current treatment for depression. The GDS-15 was administered twice within 1 month: self-administered by mail, and interviewer-administered during home visits. The sequence of administering the methods was different for the two practices. We analyzed differences in total and item GDS-scores. Of 141 subjects who participated (response rate 55%) 59 were men (42%). Mean age was 81.4 years (SD 4.8). When the GDS-15 was self-administered, 33 subjects (23.4%) left items unanswered. There were no items unanswered when the GDS-15 was interviewer-administered. On average the self-administered total GDS scores were 0.70 points higher than interviewer-administered scores (95% confidence interval=0.41; 0.98), with a large range of variation in the scores (limits of agreement -2.69 to 4.08). Item-item comparisons showed high percentages of agreement. Chance-corrected agreement (kappa) was moderate to fair, but three items showed only slight agreement (kappa values <0.21). In conclusion, compared to interviewer-administered scores, scores on the GDS-15 when self-administered were higher. The method of administration should be taken into account when interpreting scores

Response to an unsolicited intervention offer to persons aged >/= 75 years after screening positive for depressive symptoms: a qualitative study

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: Screening can increase detection of clinically relevant depressive symptoms, but screen-positive persons are not necessarily willing to accept a subsequent unsolicited treatment offer. Our objective was to explore limiting and motivating factors in accepting an offer to join a "coping with depression" course, and perceived needs among persons aged >/=75 years who screened positive for depressive symptoms in general practice. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial, in which 101 persons who had screened positive for depressive symptoms were offered a "coping with depression" course, a sample of 23 persons were interviewed, of whom five (22%) accepted the treatment offer. Interview transcripts were coded independently by two researchers. RESULTS: All five individuals who accepted a place on the course felt depressed and/or lonely and had positive expectations about the course. The main reasons for declining to join the course were: not feeling depressed, or having negative thoughts about the course effect, concerns about group participation, or about being too old to change and learn new things. Although perceived needs to relieve depressive symptoms largely matched the elements of the course, most of those who had been screened were not (yet) prepared to accept an intervention offer. Many expressed the need to discuss this treatment decision with their general practitioner. CONCLUSIONS: Although the unsolicited treatment offer closely matched the perceived needs of people screening positive for depressive symptoms, only those who combined feelings of being depressed or lonely with positive expectations about the offered course accepted it. Treatment should perhaps be more individually tailored to the patient's motivational stage towards change, a process in which general practitioners can play an important role