Dataset Information

A Randomized Trial of Real-Time Geriatric Assessment Reporting in Nonelectively Hospitalized Older Adults with Cancer.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Hospitalized older adults have significant geriatric deficits that may lead to poor outcomes. We conducted a randomized trial to investigate the effectiveness of providing clinicians with a real-time geriatric assessment (GA) report in nonelectively hospitalized older patients with cancer. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS:We developed a web-based software platform for administering a modified GA (Cancer 2005;104:1998-2005) to older (>70?years) nonelectively hospitalized patients with pathologically confirmed malignancy. Patients were randomized to have their GA report provided to their treating clinicians (Intervention arm) or not provided (Control arm). RESULTS:Our study included 135 patients, median age 76 years, 52% female, 75% white, 21% black, 79% greater than high school education, 59% married, and 17% living alone. All patients had at least one GA-identified deficit, including physical function deficits (90%), cognitive impairment (22%), >5 comorbidities (28%), polypharmacy (>9 medications; 38%), weight loss ?10% in the past 6 months (40%), anxiety (32%), or depression (30%). There was no difference between the Intervention (6%) and Control arms (9%) in the proportion of patients who were referred by their clinical team for an intervention to address a deficit (p = .53). CONCLUSION:Many older nonelectively hospitalized patients with cancer have geriatric deficits that are amenable to evidence-based interventions. Real-time GA reports provided to the care team prior to discharge did not influence provider referral for such interventions. There is a need for systems-level interventions to address deficits in this vulnerable patient population. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:Geriatric deficits are common in hospitalized older adults with cancer and lead to poor outcomes. Addressing modifiable deficits represents an appealing way to improve outcomes. Widespread geriatrician consultation is impractical owing to resource and personnel constraints. This work tested whether prompt delivery of a mostly self-administered, web-based geriatric assessment report to clinicians improved referral rates for evidence-informed interventions. It confirmed frequent geriatric deficits and high readmission rates in this population but found that real-time geriatric assessment reporting did not influence provider referral for evidence-informed interventions on geriatric assessment identified deficits. These findings highlight the need for systems-level intervention to improve outcomes in this vulnerable patient population.

SUBMITTER: Jolly TA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7288650 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Randomized Trial of Real-Time Geriatric Assessment Reporting in Nonelectively Hospitalized Older Adults with Cancer.

Jolly Trevor A TA Deal Allison M AM Mariano Caroline C Markowski Nicole N Kirk Sharanda S Perlmutt Max S MS Jones Franklin F Choi Suel Ki SK Nyrop Kirsten A KA Busby-Whitehead Jan J Muss Hyman H

The oncologist 20200127 6

<h4>Background</h4>Hospitalized older adults have significant geriatric deficits that may lead to poor outcomes. We conducted a randomized trial to investigate the effectiveness of providing clinicians with a real-time geriatric assessment (GA) report in nonelectively hospitalized older patients with cancer.<h4>Subjects, materials, and methods</h4>We developed a web-based software platform for administering a modified GA (Cancer 2005;104:1998-2005) to older (>70 years) nonelectively hospitalized ...[more]

PMID: 31985125

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn longevity societies, one of the most serious social issues is sarcopenia and/or frailty. Preventing them is important for maintaining independence and quality of life in the older population. This study investigated the effect of a self-monitoring comprehensive geriatric intervention programme (CGIP) on physical function and muscle size in community-dwelling older adults. We compared the effects of a CGIP using weekly class-styled (CS) sessions and a home-based (HB) programme.MethodsThe 526 participants were randomized into one of two groups (CS 251, HB 275) based on their residential districts. We conducted a 12 week CGIP, which consisted of low-load resistance exercise, physical activity increments, oral function improvements, and a nutritional guide. All participants were encouraged to attend two 90 min lectures that included instructions on the CGIP. They were provided with exercise materials (triaxial-accelerometers/pedometers, ankle weights, and elastic bands) and diary logs. The CS group attended 90 min weekly sessions and independently executed the programme on other days, whereas the HB group only received instructions on how to execute the programme. Physical functions, such as knee extension strength (KES), normal and maximum walking speed, the timed up-and-go test, and anterior thigh muscle thickness (MT), were measured and analysed using intention-to-treat analysis before and after the 12 week intervention.ResultsOf the 526 participants identified, 517 (CS 243 age 74.0 ± 5.4 women 57.2%, HB 274 age 74.0 ± 5.6 women 58.8%) were enrolled. Nine (CS 8, HB 1) were excluded from the analysis because they did not participate in the pre-intervention measurements. Both interventions significantly improved KES (CS 18.5%, HB 10.6%), normal walking speed (CS 3.7%, HB 2.8%), and MT (CS 3.2%, HB 3.5%). Greater improvement of KES was observed in the CS group (P = 0.003). Maximum walking speed (CS 4.7%, HB 1.8%; P = 0.001) and timed up-and-go (CS -4.7%, HB -0.2%; P < 0.001) significantly improved in the CS group only.ConclusionsThe intervention was effective in preventing sarcopenia and/or frailty. Most physical functions and MT improved after both interventions. The HB intervention is cost-effective and may help prevent sarcopenia and/or frailty in the large older population.

Project description:BackgroundOlder adults with gastrointestinal cancers undergoing surgery often experience poor outcomes, such as prolonged postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) use, hospital readmissions, and complications. Involvement of geriatricians in the care of older adults with cancer can improve outcomes. We conducted a randomized trial of a perioperative geriatric intervention (PERI-OP) in older patients with gastrointestinal cancer undergoing surgery.MethodsFrom 9/2016-4/2019, we randomly assigned patients age ≥ 65 with gastrointestinal cancer planning to undergo surgical resection to receive PERI-OP or usual care. Patients assigned to PERI-OP met with a geriatrician preoperatively in the outpatient setting and postoperatively as an inpatient consultant. The primary outcome was postoperative hospital LOS. Secondary outcomes included postoperative ICU use, 90-day hospital readmission rates, and complication rates. We conducted intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses.ResultsITT analyses included 137/160 patients who underwent surgery (usual care = 68/78, intervention = 69/82). PP analyses included the 68 usual care patients and the 30/69 intervention patients who received the preoperative and postoperative intervention components. ITT analyses demonstrated no significant differences between intervention and usual care in postoperative hospital LOS (7.23 vs 8.21 days, P = 0.374), ICU use (23.2% vs 32.4%, P = 0.257), 90-day hospital readmission rates (21.7% vs 25.0%, P = 0.690), or complication rates (17.4% vs 20.6%, P = 0.668). In PP analyses, intervention patients had shorter postoperative hospital LOS (5.90 vs 8.21 days, P = 0.024), but differences in ICU use (13.3% vs 32.4%, P = 0.081), 90-day hospital readmission rates (16.7% vs 25.0%, P = 0.439), and complication rates (6.7% vs 20.6%, P = 0.137) remained non-significant.ConclusionsIn this randomized trial, PERI-OP did not have a significant impact on postoperative hospital LOS, ICU use, hospital readmissions, or complications. However, the subgroup who received PERI-OP as planned experienced encouraging results. Future studies of PERI-OP should include efforts, such as telehealth, to ensure the intervention is delivered as planned.

Project description:BackgroundOncologists often struggle with managing the unique care needs of older adults with cancer. This study sought to determine the feasibility of delivering a transdisciplinary intervention targeting the geriatric-specific (physical function and comorbidity) and palliative care (symptoms and prognostic understanding) needs of older adults with advanced cancer.MethodsPatients aged ?65 years with incurable gastrointestinal or lung cancer were randomly assigned to a transdisciplinary intervention or usual care. Those in the intervention arm received 2 visits with a geriatrician, who addressed patients' palliative care needs and conducted a geriatric assessment. We predefined the intervention as feasible if >70% of eligible patients enrolled in the study and >75% of eligible patients completed study visits and surveys. At baseline and week 12, we assessed patients' quality of life (QoL), symptoms, and communication confidence. We calculated mean change scores in outcomes and estimated intervention effect sizes (ES; Cohen's d) for changes from baseline to week 12, with 0.2 indicating a small effect, 0.5 a medium effect, and 0.8 a large effect.ResultsFrom February 2017 through June 2018, we randomized 62 patients (55.9% enrollment rate [most common reason for refusal was feeling too ill]; median age, 72.3 years; cancer types: 56.5% gastrointestinal, 43.5% lung). Among intervention patients, 82.1% attended the first visit and 79.6% attended both. Overall, 89.7% completed all study surveys. Compared with usual care, intervention patients had less QoL decrement (-0.77 vs -3.84; ES = 0.21), reduced number of moderate/severe symptoms (-0.69 vs +1.04; ES = 0.58), and improved communication confidence (+1.06 vs -0.80; ES = 0.38).ConclusionsIn this pilot trial, enrollment exceeded 55%, and >75% of enrollees completed all study visits and surveys. The transdisciplinary intervention targeting older patients' unique care needs showed encouraging ES estimates for enhancing patients' QoL, symptom burden, and communication confidence.

Project description:IntroductionMore older adults die from lung cancer worldwide than breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers combined. Current lung cancer treatments may prolong life, but can also cause considerable treatment-related toxicity.ObjectiveThis study is a secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized clinical trial which evaluated whether providing a geriatric assessment (GA) summary and GA-guided management recommendations can improve grade 3-5 toxicity among older adults with advanced lung cancer.MethodsWe analyzed participants aged ≥70 years(y) with stage III & IV (advanced) lung cancer and ≥1 GA domain impairment starting a new cancer treatment with high-risk of toxicity within the National Cancer Institute's Community Oncology Research Program. Community practices were randomized to the intervention arm (oncologists received GA summary & recommendations) versus usual care (UC: no summary or recommendations given). The primary outcome was grade 3-5 toxicity through 3 months post-treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes included 6-month (mo) and 1-year overall survival (OS), treatment modifications, and unplanned hospitalizations. Outcomes were analyzed using generalized linear mixed and Cox proportional hazards models with practice site as a random effect. Trial Registration: NCT02054741.Results & conclusionAmong 180 participants with advanced lung cancer, the mean age was 76.3y (SD 5.1), 39.4% were female and 82.2% had stage IV disease. The proportion of patients who experienced grade 3-5 toxicity was significantly lower in the intervention arm vs UC (53.1% vs 71.6%, P=0.01). More participants in the intervention arm received lower intensity treatment at cycle 1 (56.3% vs 35.3%; P<0.01). Even with a cycle 1 dose reduction, OS at 6mo and 1 year was not significantly different (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] intervention vs. UC: 6mo HR=0.90, 95% CI: 0.52-1.57, P=0.72; 1 year HR=0.89, 95% CI: 0.58-1.36, P=0.57). Frequent toxicity checks, providing education and counseling materials, and initiating direct communication with the patient's primary care physician were among the most common GA-guided management recommendations. Providing a GA summary and management recommendations can significantly improve tolerability of cancer treatment among older adults with advanced lung cancer.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Older adults have high rates of obesity and are prone to chronic health conditions. These conditions are in part due to high rates of sedentary time (ST). As such, reducing ST could be an innovative strategy for improving health outcomes among obese older adults. To test this theory, we developed a novel, technology-enhanced intervention to reduce sitting time (I-STAND) and pilot tested it to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effects of the intervention on ST and biometric outcomes. OBJECTIVE:The current paper aims to describe the rationale, design, and methods of the I-STAND sitting reduction pilot trial. METHODS:Older adults with obesity (n=60) were recruited from a large health care system and randomized to receive I-STAND or a healthy living intervention. I-STAND combined personal coaching with a technology-enhanced intervention (Jawbone UP band) to cue breaks from sitting. Participants completed self-report and biometric assessments at baseline and 3 months. Additional qualitative results were collected from a subset of I-STAND participants (n=22) to further inform the feasibility and acceptability of the interventions. The primary outcome was total hours of daily sitting time measured by the activPAL device. Secondary outcomes included sit-to-stand transitions, bouts of sitting longer than 30 minutes, physical function, blood pressure, fasting glucose, cholesterol, and depressive symptoms. RESULTS:Study enrollment has ended and data processing is underway. CONCLUSIONS:Data from randomized trials on sitting reduction are needed to inform novel approaches to health promotion among older adults with obesity. Our trial will help fill this gap. The methods used in our study can guide future research on using technology-based devices to assess or prompt sedentary behavior reduction, or those interested in behavioral interventions targeting obese older adults with novel approaches. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02692560; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02692560 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6wppLTWAl).

Project description:ImportancePractical health promotion strategies for improving cardiometabolic health in older adults are needed.ObjectiveTo examine the efficacy of a sedentary behavior reduction intervention for reducing sitting time and improving blood pressure in older adults.Design, setting, and participantsThis parallel-group randomized clinical trial was conducted in adults aged 60 to 89 years with high sitting time and body mass index of 30 to 50 from January 1, 2019, to November 31, 2022, at a health care system in Washington State.InterventionParticipants were randomized 1:1 to the sitting reduction intervention or a healthy living attention control condition for 6 months. Intervention participants received 10 health coaching contacts, sitting reduction goals, and a standing desk and fitness tracker to prompt sitting breaks. The attention control group received 10 health coaching contacts to set general healthy living goals, excluding physical activity or sedentary behavior.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome, measured at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months, was sitting time assessed using accelerometers worn for 7 days at each time point. Coprimary outcomes were systolic and diastolic blood pressure measured at baseline and 6 months.ResultsA total of 283 participants (140 intervention and 143 control) were randomized (baseline mean [SD] age, 68.8 [6.2] years; 186 [65.7%] female; mean [SD] body mass index, 34.9 [4.7]). At baseline, 147 (51.9%) had a hypertension diagnosis and 97 (69.3%) took at least 1 antihypertensive medication. Sitting time was reduced, favoring the intervention arm, with a difference in the mean change of -31.44 min/d at 3 months (95% CI, -48.69 to -14.19 min/d; P < .001) and -31.85 min/d at 6 months (95% CI, -52.91 to -10.79 min/d; P = .003). Systolic blood pressure change was lower by 3.48 mm Hg, favoring the intervention arm at 6 months (95% CI, -6.68 to -0.28 mm Hg; P = .03). There were 6 serious adverse events in each arm and none were study related.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study of a 6-month sitting reduction intervention, older adults in the intervention reduced sedentary time by more than 30 min/d and reduced systolic blood pressure. Sitting reduction could be a promising approach to improve health in older adults.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03739762.

Dataset Information

A Randomized Trial of Real-Time Geriatric Assessment Reporting in Nonelectively Hospitalized Older Adults with Cancer.

Publications

A Randomized Trial of Real-Time Geriatric Assessment Reporting in Nonelectively Hospitalized Older Adults with Cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets