Expanding Evidence for Clinical Care of Older Adults: Beyond Clinical Trial Traditions and Finding New Approaches

Evaluating the potential of immunotherapy and chemoimmunotherapy in the treatment of elderly non-small cell lung cancer patients: A real-world study

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) has become the standard therapy for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. However, no robust evidence on the efficacy and safety of ICI in elderly NSCLC patients has been established.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ICI in elderly NSCLC patients. NSCLC patients treated with ICI monotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) between 2016 and 2022 were divided into two cohorts according to the age: the Elderly cohort (patients aged ≥ 75 years) and the Nonelderly cohort (patients aged < 75 years). The progression-free survival (PFS), tumor response, and frequency of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were compared between the two cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 111 NSCLC patients were included in this study (41 patients in the Elderly cohort and 70 patients in the Nonelderly cohort). The PFS (5.6 months vs. 6.3 months, P = 0.98), response rate (36.6% vs. 44.9%, P = 0.51), and disease control rate (80.5% vs. 76.8%, P = 0.83) were not significantly different between the two cohorts. In a subgroup analysis, stratified according to PD-L1 expression (low vs. high) and ICI treatment mode (ICI monotherapy vs. CIT), the PFSs of both cohorts were also not significantly different, regardless of PD-L1 expression. Moreover, the frequency of irAEs did not significantly differ between elderly and nonelderly NSCLC patients (21/41 [51.2%] vs. 38/70 [54.3%], P = 0.91).

CONCLUSION

The efficacy and safety of ICI in elderly NSCLC patients were not inferior to those in younger patients.

How does cumulative evidence from older adult-specific trials influence clinical practice? A difference-in-differences analysis in early-stage breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite increasing focus on conducting cancer clinical trials in older adults, it is unclear whether such evidence influences practice patterns. We aimed to estimate the impact of cumulative evidence from older adult-specific trial results from the CALGB 9343 and PRIME II trials that found post-lumpectomy irradiation has little benefit among older adults with early-stage breast cancer (ESBC).

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with ESBC between 2000 and 2018 were identified from the SEER registry data. We examined the incremental immediate effect, incremental average yearly effect, and cumulative effect of a series of CALGB 9343 and PRIME II results on the utilization level of post-lumpectomy irradiation. We conducted difference-in-differences analyses, comparing those aged 70 or older vs. <65 years old.

RESULTS

The initial 5-year CALGB 9343 results in 2004 led to a significant immediate (-0.038, 95% CI: -0.064, -0.012) and average yearly decrease (-0.008, 95% CI: -0.013, -0.003) in the probability of irradiation use among those aged 70 or older compared to those below 65 years of age. 11-year CALGB 9343 results in 2010 significantly accelerated the average yearly effect by 1.7 percentage points (95% CI: -0.030, -0.004). The other later results did not significantly change the time trend. The cumulative effect of all results between 2004 and 2018 was -26.3 percentage points (95% CI: -0.29, -0.24).

CONCLUSION

Cumulative evidence from older adult-specific trials in ESBC led to decreasing use of irradiation over time among elderly patients. The rate of decrease after the initial results was accelerated by long-term follow-up results.

Association between changes in loneliness identified through screening and changes in depression or anxiety in older adults

BACKGROUND

Changes in loneliness are associated with corresponding changes in depression, anxiety, and general health in population surveys, but few studies have assessed these associations through repeated screening in clinical settings.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study among individuals ≥age 65 in an integrated health care system who completed loneliness screening before two annual wellness visits, separated by a mean of 12.9 (SD 2.0) months, between 2013 and 2018. Their responses identified four subgroups: individuals who were persistently lonely; not lonely; experienced an increase (recently lonely); or decrease (previously lonely) in loneliness. Loneliness was assessed with a single item. Depression was assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire-2. Anxiety was assessed with the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2. Fair/poor general health was assessed by a single item. Linear mixed effects models assessed changes in outcomes after covariate adjustment.

RESULTS

The cohort comprised 24,666 individuals (19.2% of older adults in the system). Mean age was 73.7 years (SD 6.4); 54.6% were female, and 11.6% were members of racial and ethnic minority groups. Of these individuals, 1936 (7.8%) were persistently lonely, 1687 (6.8%) were recently lonely, 1551 (6.3%) were previously lonely, and 19,492 (79.0%) were not lonely at either time point. After adjustment for sociodemographic, clinical and social variables, recent loneliness was associated with increases in depression (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41-2.19) and anxiety (aOR 1.67, 95% CI 1.32-2.10). Previous loneliness was associated with decreases in depression (aOR, 0.46, 95% CI 0.36-0.58) and anxiety (aOR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54-0.90). Changes in loneliness were not associated with changes in general health.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in loneliness identified through screening were associated with corresponding changes in depression and anxiety. These findings support the potential value of identifying social risk factors in clinical settings among older adults.

Shared decision-making in the realm of uncertainty: The example of coronary artery disease through an EBM and complexity science lens

Patients look to their clinicians for explanations and treatments that achieve predictable cures with certainty. Clinicians usually respond accordingly. Acknowledging uncertainty, while necessary, is difficult, anxiety-provoking and at times overwhelming for patients and clinicians alike. We here present three case studies to illustrate the uncertainties of managing patients with potentially life-threatening illnesses. Research aims to provide answers to clinical problems. But, conducting research almost inevitably entails a reduction of real-world complexities. Research ultimately can only provide 'partial or in general answers' mostly revealing new questions. Due to the complexity of clinical care, research cannot really achieve certainty and predictability for an individual within his specific living context and values. In an unavoidably uncertain environment, instead of oversimplifying, clinicians like patients-as far as possible-ought to better embrace a complexity thinking frame. This provides a deeper understanding how living bodies function as-a-whole within their living contexts. Uncertainty and unpredictability, being inherent elements of complexity thinking, cannot be overcome. However, it may be made easier to cope with uncertainty by at least adopting the thinking in probabilities for benefits and harms of patient related outcomes as introduced in Sackett's Evidence-Based Medicine framework. Through the lenses of evidence-based medicine and complexity sciences this paper critically explores the clinical management of three patients diagnosed as having coronary artery disease. They all received the same treatment even though they presented with very different clinical complaints arising from different disease manifestations. Looking at these case studies the authors reflect on the reasons behind this astonishing, but widely seen medical behaviour of 'one size fits all'. They critically reflect the importance of research and evidence in view of a person-centred solution.

N-of-1 trials to facilitate evidence-based deprescribing: Rationale and case study

Deprescribing has emerged as an important aspect of patient-centred medication management but is vastly underutilized in clinical practice. The current narrative review will describe an innovative patient-centred approach to deprescribing-N-of-1 trials. N-of-1 trials involve multiple-period crossover design experiments conducted within individual patients. They enable patients to compare the effects of two or more treatments or, in the case of deprescribing N-of-1 trials, continuation with a current treatment versus no treatment or placebo. N-of-1 trials are distinct from traditional between-patient studies such as parallel-group or crossover designs which provide an average effect across a group of patients and obscure differences between individuals. By generating data on the effect of an intervention for the individual rather than the population, N-of-1 trials can promote therapeutic precision. N-of-1 trials are a particularly appealing strategy to inform deprescribing because they can generate individual-level evidence for deprescribing when evidence is uncertain, and can thus allay patient and physician concerns about discontinuing medications. To illustrate the use of deprescribing N-of-1 trials, we share a case example of an ongoing series of N-of-1 trials that compare maintenance versus deprescribing of beta-blockers in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. By providing quantifiable data on patient-reported outcomes, promoting personalized pharmacotherapy, and facilitating shared decision making, N-of-1 trials represent a potentially transformative strategy to address polypharmacy.

Characterization of older adults with cancer seeking acute emergency department care: A prospective observational study

INTRODUCTION

Disparities in care of older adults in cancer treatment trials and emergency department (ED) use exist. This report provides a baseline description of older adults ≥65 years old who present to the ED with active cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Planned secondary analysis of the Comprehensive Oncologic Emergencies Research Network observational ED cohort study sponsored by the National Cancer Institute. Of 1564 eligible adults with active cancer, 1075 patients were prospectively enrolled, of which 505 were ≥ 65 years old. We recruited this convenience sample from eighteen participating sites across the United States between February 1, 2016 and January 30, 2017.

RESULTS

Compared to cancer patients younger than 65 years of age, older adults were more likely to be transported to the ED by emergency medical services, have a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and be admitted despite no significant difference in acuity as measured by the Emergency Severity Index. Despite the higher admission rate, no significant difference was noted in hospitalization length of stay, 30-day mortality, ED revisit or hospital admission within 30 days after the index visit. Three of the top five ED diagnoses for older adults were symptom-related (fever of other and unknown origin, abdominal and pelvic pain, and pain in throat and chest). Despite this, older adults were less likely to report symptoms and less likely to receive symptomatic treatment for pain and nausea than the younger comparison group. Both younger and older adults reported a higher symptom burden on the patient reported Condensed Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale than to ED providers. When treating suspected infection, no differences were noted in regard to administration of antibiotics in the ED, admissions, or length of stay ≤2 days for those receiving ED antibiotics.

DISCUSSION

We identified several differences between older (≥65 years old) and younger adults with active cancer seeking emergency care. Older adults frequently presented for symptom-related diagnoses but received fewer symptomatic interventions in the ED suggesting that important opportunities to improve the care of older adults with cancer in the ED exist.

Advancing clinical trials in nursing homes: A proposed roadmap to success

An effective clinical research effort in nursing homes to address prevention and treatment of COVID-19 faced overwhelming challenges. Under the Health Care Systems Research Network-Older Americans Independence Centers AGING Initiative, a multidisciplinary Stakeholder Advisory Panel was convened to develop recommendations to improve the capability of the clinical research enterprise in US nursing homes. The Panel considered the nursing home as a setting for clinical trials, reviewed the current state of clinical trials in nursing homes, and ultimately developed recommendations for the establishment of a nursing home clinical trials research network that would be centrally supported and administered. This report summarizes the Panel's recommendations, which were developed in alignment with the following core principles: build on available research infrastructure where appropriate; leverage existing productive partnerships of researchers with groups of nursing homes and nursing home corporations; encompass both efficacy and effectiveness clinical trials; be responsive to a broad range of stakeholders including nursing home residents and their care partners; be relevant to an expansive range of clinical and health care delivery research questions; be able to pivot as necessary to changing research priorities and circumstances; create a pathway for industry-sponsored research as appropriate; invest in strategies to increase diversity in study populations and the research workforce; and foster the development of the next generation of nursing home researchers.

Deprescribing Education vs Usual Care for Patients With Cognitive Impairment and Primary Care Clinicians: The OPTIMIZE Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial

Background

Individuals with dementia or mild cognitive impairment frequently have multiple chronic conditions (defined as ≥2 chronic medical conditions) and take multiple medications, increasing their risk for adverse outcomes. Deprescribing (reducing or stopping medications for which potential harms outweigh potential benefits) may decrease their risk of adverse outcomes.

Objective

To examine the effectiveness of increasing patient and clinician awareness about the potential to deprescribe unnecessary or risky medications among patients with dementia or mild cognitive impairment.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This pragmatic, patient-centered, 12-month cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020, at 18 primary care clinics in a not-for-profit integrated health care delivery system. The study included 3012 adults aged 65 years or older with dementia or mild cognitive impairment who had 1 or more additional chronic medical conditions and were taking 5 or more long-term medications.

Interventions

An educational brochure and a questionnaire on attitudes toward deprescribing were mailed to patients prior to a primary care visit, clinicians were notified about the mailing, and deprescribing tip sheets were distributed to clinicians at monthly clinic meetings.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The number of prescribed long-term medications and the percentage of individuals prescribed 1 or more potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis.

Results

This study comprised 1433 individuals (806 women [56.2%]; mean [SD] age, 80.1 [7.2] years) in 9 intervention clinics and 1579 individuals (874 women [55.4%]; mean [SD] age, 79.9 [7.5] years) in 9 control clinics who met the eligibility criteria. At baseline, both groups were prescribed a similar mean (SD) number of long-term medications (7.0 [2.1] in the intervention group and 7.0 [2.2] in the control group), and a similar proportion of individuals in both groups were taking 1 or more PIMs (437 of 1433 individuals [30.5%] in the intervention group and 467 of 1579 individuals [29.6%] in the control group). At 6 months, the adjusted mean number of long-term medications was similar in the intervention and control groups (6.4 [95% CI, 6.3-6.5] vs 6.5 [95% CI, 6.4-6.6]; P = .14). The estimated percentages of patients in the intervention and control groups taking 1 or more PIMs were similar (17.8% [95% CI, 15.4%-20.5%] vs 20.9% [95% CI, 18.4%-23.6%]; P = .08). In preplanned subgroup analyses, adjusted differences between the intervention and control groups were -0.16 (95% CI, -0.34 to 0.01) for individuals prescribed 7 or more long-term medications at baseline (n = 1434) and -0.03 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.13) for those prescribed 5 to 6 medications (n = 1578) (P = .28 for interaction; P = .19 for subgroup interaction for PIMs).

Conclusions and Relevance

This large-scale educational deprescribing intervention for older adults with cognitive impairment taking 5 or more long-term medications and their primary care clinicians demonstrated small effect sizes and did not significantly reduce the number of long-term medications and PIMs. Such interventions should target older adults taking relatively more medications.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03984396.

Advancing Clinical Trials in Nursing Homes: A Proposed Roadmap to Success

An effective clinical research effort in nursing homes to address prevention and treatment of COVID-19 faced overwhelming challenges. Under the Health Care Systems Research Network-Older Americans Independence Centers AGING Initiative, a multidisciplinary Stakeholder Advisory Panel was convened to develop recommendations to improve the capability of the clinical research enterprise in US nursing homes. The Panel considered the nursing home as a setting for clinical trials, reviewed the current state of clinical trials in nursing homes, and ultimately developed recommendations for the establishment of a nursing home clinical trials research network that would be centrally supported and administered. This report summarizes the Panel's recommendations, which were developed in alignment with the following core principles: build on available research infrastructure where appropriate; leverage existing productive partnerships of researchers with groups of nursing homes and nursing home corporations; encompass both efficacy and effectiveness clinical trials; be responsive to a broad range of stakeholders including nursing home residents and their care partners; be relevant to an expansive range of clinical and health care delivery research questions; be able to pivot as necessary to changing research priorities and circumstances; create a pathway for industry-sponsored research as appropriate; invest in strategies to increase diversity in study populations and the research workforce; and foster the development of the next generation of nursing home researchers.

A Novel Explainability Approach for Technology-Driven Translational Research on Brain Aging

Brain aging leads to difficulties in functional independence. Mitigating these difficulties can benefit from technology that predicts, monitors, and modifies brain aging. Translational research prioritizes solutions that can be causally linked to specific pathophysiologies at the same time as demonstrating improvements in impactful real-world outcome measures. This poses a challenge for brain aging technology that needs to address the tension between mechanism-driven precision and clinical relevance. In the current opinion, by synthesizing emerging mechanistic, translational, and clinical research-related frameworks, and our own development of technology-driven brain aging research, we suggest incorporating the appreciation of four desiderata (causality, informativeness, transferability, and fairness) of explainability into early-stage research that designs and tests brain aging technology. We apply a series of work on electrocardiography-based "peripheral" neuroplasticity markers from our work as an illustration of our proposed approach. We believe this novel approach will promote the development and adoption of brain aging technology that links and addresses brain pathophysiology and functional independence in the field of translational research.

Advancing Clinical Trials in Nursing Homes: A Proposed Roadmap to Success

An effective clinical research effort in nursing homes to address prevention and treatment of COVID-19 faced overwhelming challenges. Under the Health Care Systems Research Network-Older Americans Independence Centers AGING Initiative, a multidisciplinary Stakeholder Advisory Panel was convened to develop recommendations to improve the capability of the clinical research enterprise in US nursing homes. The Panel considered the nursing home as a setting for clinical trials, reviewed the current state of clinical trials in nursing homes, and ultimately developed recommendations for the establishment of a nursing home clinical trials research network that would be centrally supported and administered. This report summarizes the Panel’s recommendations, which were developed in alignment with the following core principles: build on available research infrastructure where appropriate; leverage existing productive partnerships of researchers with groups of nursing homes and nursing home corporations; encompass both efficacy and effectiveness clinical trials; be responsive to a broad range of stakeholders including nursing home residents and their care partners; be relevant to an expansive range of clinical and health care delivery research questions; be able to pivot as necessary to changing research priorities and circumstances; create a pathway for industry-sponsored research as appropriate; invest in strategies to increase diversity in study populations and the research workforce; and foster the development of the next generation of nursing home researchers.