Efficacy of nurse-led and general practitioner-led comprehensive geriatric assessment in primary care: protocol of a pragmatic three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial (CEpiA study)

Effectiveness of comprehensive geriatric assessment adapted to primary care when provided by a nurse or a general practitioner: the CEpiA cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND

The benefits of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) are well established for hospital care but less so for primary care. Our primary objective was to assess the effect of two multifaceted interventions based on a CGA adapted for primary care on a composite criterion combining all-cause mortality, emergency department visits, unplanned hospital admissions, and institutionalisation.

METHODS

This open-label, pragmatic, three-arm, cluster-randomised controlled trial involved 39 general practices in France. It included 634 patients aged 70 years or over with chronic health conditions and/or an unplanned hospital admission in the past 3 months, between 05/2016 and 08/2018. Interventions were in arm 1: a systematic nurse-led CGA; arm 2: a GP-led CGA, at the GP's discretion; arm 3: standard care. The primary composite endpoint was assessed at 12 months. The secondary endpoints included: components of the composite endpoint, health-related quality of life (Duke Health Profile), functional status (Katz Activities of Daily Living Index) and medications (number) at 12 months. Pairwise comparisons between the experimental groups and the control were tested. The main analysis was performed on the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, after imputing missing information and adjusting for baseline imbalances by mixed effects regressions.

RESULTS

For the primary composite outcome, no statistically significant difference was found between arm 1 and the control (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.81 [95%CI 0.54-1.21], P = 0.31), whereas arm 2 and the control differed significantly (aOR = 0.60 [0.39-0.93], P = 0.022). A statistically lower risk of unplanned hospital admission in arm 2 vs control (aOR = 0.57 [0.36-0.92], P = 0.020)) was observed, while no statistically significant differences were found for the other components and between arm 1 and the control. None of the other secondary endpoints differed between arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study led in community-dwelling older patients with chronic conditions found no significant effect of a CGA adapted for primary care on mortality, functional independence and quality of life, but suggests that a GP-led CGA may reduce the risk of unplanned hospital admission. Our study demonstrates the feasibility of incorporating CGA into clinical practice and highlights its potential benefits when applied on a case-by-case basis, guided by the GPs who develop the resulting PCP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02664454.

Community-based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people, stratified by frailty: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Sustaining independence is important for older people, but there is insufficient guidance about which community health and care services to implement.

Objectives

To synthesise evidence of the effectiveness of community services to sustain independence for older people grouped according to their intervention components, and to examine if frailty moderates the effect.

Review design

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Eligibility criteria

Studies: Randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised controlled trials. Participants: Older people (mean age 65+) living at home. Interventions: community-based complex interventions for sustaining independence. Comparators: usual care, placebo or another complex intervention.

Main outcomes

Living at home, instrumental activities of daily living, personal activities of daily living, care-home placement and service/economic outcomes at 1 year.

Data sources

We searched MEDLINE (1946-), Embase (1947-), CINAHL (1972-), PsycINFO (1806-), CENTRAL and trial registries from inception to August 2021, without restrictions, and scanned reference lists.

Review methods

Interventions were coded, summarised and grouped. Study populations were classified by frailty. A random-effects network meta-analysis was used. We assessed trial-result risk of bias (Cochrane RoB 2), network meta-analysis inconsistency and certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation for network meta-analysis).

Results

We included 129 studies (74,946 participants). Nineteen intervention components, including 'multifactorial-action' (multidomain assessment and management/individualised care planning), were identified in 63 combinations. The following results were of low certainty unless otherwise stated. For living at home, compared to no intervention/placebo, evidence favoured: multifactorial-action and review with medication-review (odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.59; moderate certainty) multifactorial-action with medication-review (odds ratio 2.55, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 10.60) cognitive training, medication-review, nutrition and exercise (odds ratio 1.93, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 4.77) and activities of daily living training, nutrition and exercise (odds ratio 1.79, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 4.76). Four intervention combinations may reduce living at home. For instrumental activities of daily living, evidence favoured multifactorial-action and review with medication-review (standardised mean difference 0.11, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.21; moderate certainty). Two interventions may reduce instrumental activities of daily living. For personal activities of daily living, evidence favoured exercise, multifactorial-action and review with medication-review and self-management (standardised mean difference 0.16, 95% confidence interval -0.51 to 0.82). For homecare recipients, evidence favoured the addition of multifactorial-action and review with medication-review (standardised mean difference 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.88). Care-home placement and service/economic findings were inconclusive.

Limitations

High risk of bias in most results and imprecise estimates meant that most evidence was low or very low certainty. Few studies contributed to each comparison, impeding evaluation of inconsistency and frailty. Studies were diverse; findings may not apply to all contexts.

Conclusions

Findings for the many intervention combinations evaluated were largely small and uncertain. However, the combinations most likely to sustain independence include multifactorial-action, medication-review and ongoing review of patients. Some combinations may reduce independence.

Future work

Further research is required to explore mechanisms of action and interaction with context. Different methods for evidence synthesis may illuminate further.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019162195.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128862) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 48. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

A non-randomised controlled study to assess the effectiveness of a new proactive multidisciplinary care intervention for older people living with frailty

Background

Integrated care may improve outcomes for older people living with frailty. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of a new, anticipatory, multidisciplinary care service in improving the wellbeing and quality of life (QoL) of older people living with severe frailty.

Methods

A community-based non-randomised controlled study. Participants (≥65 years, electronic Frailty Index ≥0.36) received either the new integrated care service plus usual care, or usual care alone. Data collection was at three time points: baseline, 2-4 weeks, and 10-14 weeks. The primary outcome was patient wellbeing (symptoms and other concerns) at 2-4 weeks, measured using the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS); the secondary outcome was QoL, measured using EQ-5D-5L. To test duration of effect and safety, wellbeing and QoL were also measured at 10-14 weeks. Descriptive statistics were used to characterise and compare intervention and control groups (eligible but had not accessed the new service), with t-test, Chi-Square, or Mann-Whitney U tests (as appropriate) to test differences at each time point. Generalised linear modelling, with propensity score matching, was used for further group comparisons. Data were analysed using STATA v17.

Results

199 intervention and 54 control participants were recruited. At baseline, intervention and control groups were similar in age, gender, ethnicity, living status, and body mass index, but not functional status or area deprivation score. At 2-4 weeks, wellbeing had improved in the intervention group but worsened in the control (median IPOS -5 versus 2, p<0.001). QoL improved in the intervention group but was unchanged in the control (median EQ-5D-5L 0.12, versus 0.00, p<0.001). After adjusting for age, gender, and living status, the intervention group had an average total IPOS score reduction at 2-4 weeks of 6.34 (95% CI: -9.01: -4.26, p<0.05); this improvement was sustained, with an average total IPOS score reduction at 10-14 weeks of 6.36 (95% CI: -8.91:-3.80, p<0.05). After propensity score matching based on functional status/area deprivation, modelling showed similar results, with a reduction in IPOS score at 2-4 weeks in the intervention group of 7.88 (95% CI: -12.80: -2.96, p<0.001).

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that the new, anticipatory, multidisciplinary care service may have improved the overall wellbeing and quality of life of older people living with frailty at 2-4 weeks and the improvement in wellbeing was sustained at three months.

Ethics approval

NHS Research Ethics Committee 18/YH/0470 and IRAS-250981.

Trial registration

The trial was retrospectively registered at the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry (registration date: 01/08/2022, registration number: ISRCTN10613839).

Multimorbidity

Multimorbidity (two or more coexisting conditions in an individual) is a growing global challenge with substantial effects on individuals, carers and society. Multimorbidity occurs a decade earlier in socioeconomically deprived communities and is associated with premature death, poorer function and quality of life and increased health-care utilization. Mechanisms underlying the development of multimorbidity are complex, interrelated and multilevel, but are related to ageing and underlying biological mechanisms and broader determinants of health such as socioeconomic deprivation. Little is known about prevention of multimorbidity, but focusing on psychosocial and behavioural factors, particularly population level interventions and structural changes, is likely to be beneficial. Most clinical practice guidelines and health-care training and delivery focus on single diseases, leading to care that is sometimes inadequate and potentially harmful. Multimorbidity requires person-centred care, prioritizing what matters most to the individual and the individual's carers, ensuring care that is effectively coordinated and minimally disruptive, and aligns with the patient's values. Interventions are likely to be complex and multifaceted. Although an increasing number of studies have examined multimorbidity interventions, there is still limited evidence to support any approach. Greater investment in multimorbidity research and training along with reconfiguration of health care supporting the management of multimorbidity is urgently needed.

Interventions for improving medication-taking ability and adherence in older adults prescribed multiple medications

BACKGROUND

Older people taking multiple medications represent a large and growing proportion of the population. Managing multiple medications can be challenging, and this is especially the case for older people, who have higher rates of comorbidity and physical and cognitive impairment than younger adults. Good medication-taking ability and medication adherence are necessary to ensure safe and effective use of medications.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve medication-taking ability and/or medication adherence in older community-dwelling adults prescribed multiple long-term medications.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from inception until June 2019. We also searched grey literature, online trial registries, and reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs. Eligible studies tested interventions aimed at improving medication-taking ability and/or medication adherence among people aged ≥ 65 years (or of mean/median age > 65 years), living in the community or being discharged from hospital back into the community, and taking four or more regular prescription medications (or with group mean/median of more than four medications). Interventions targeting carers of older people who met these criteria were also included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts and full texts of eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We conducted meta-analyses when possible and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect, risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Narrative synthesis was performed when meta-analysis was not possible. We assessed overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Primary outcomes were medication-taking ability and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life (HRQoL), emergency department (ED)/hospital admissions, and mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 50 studies (14,269 participants) comprising 40 RCTs, six cluster-RCTs, and four quasi-RCTs. All included studies evaluated interventions versus usual care; six studies also reported a comparison between two interventions as part of a three-arm RCT design. Interventions were grouped on the basis of their educational and/or behavioural components: 14 involved educational components only, 7 used behavioural strategies only, and 29 provided mixed educational and behavioural interventions. Overall, our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions was low to very low due to a high degree of heterogeneity of included studies and high or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains in most studies. Five studies evaluated interventions for improving medication-taking ability, and 48 evaluated interventions for improving medication adherence (three studies evaluated both outcomes). No studies involved educational or behavioural interventions alone for improving medication-taking ability. Low-quality evidence from five studies, each using a different measure of medication-taking ability, meant that we were unable to determine the effects of mixed interventions on medication-taking ability. Low-quality evidence suggests that behavioural only interventions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.38; 4 studies) and mixed interventions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.37; 12 studies) may increase the proportions of people who are adherent compared with usual care. We could not include in the meta-analysis results from two studies involving mixed interventions: one had a positive effect on adherence, and the other had little or no effect. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of educational only interventions (5 studies) on the proportions of people who are adherent. Low-quality evidence suggests that educational only interventions (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.43; 5 studies) and mixed interventions (SMD 0.47, 95% CI -0.08 to 1.02; 7 studies) may have little or no impact on medication adherence assessed through continuous measures of adherence. We excluded 10 studies (4 educational only and 6 mixed interventions) from the meta-analysis including four studies with unclear or no available results. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of behavioural only interventions (3 studies) on medication adherence when assessed through continuous outcomes. Low-quality evidence suggests that mixed interventions may reduce the number of ED/hospital admissions (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; 11 studies) compared with usual care, although results from six further studies that we were unable to include in meta-analyses indicate that the intervention may have a smaller, or even no, effect on these outcomes. Similarly, low-quality evidence suggests that mixed interventions may lead to little or no change in HRQoL (7 studies), and very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects on mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.30; 7 studies). Moderate-quality evidence shows that educational interventions alone probably have little or no effect on HRQoL (6 studies) or on ED/hospital admissions (4 studies) when compared with usual care. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of behavioural interventions on HRQoL (1 study) or on ED/hospital admissions (2 studies). We identified no studies evaluating effects of educational or behavioural interventions alone on mortality. Six studies reported a comparison between two interventions; however due to the limited number of studies assessing the same types of interventions and comparisons, we are unable to draw firm conclusions for any outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural only or mixed educational and behavioural interventions may improve the proportion of people who satisfactorily adhere to their prescribed medications, but we are uncertain of the effects of educational only interventions. No type of intervention was found to improve adherence when it was measured as a continuous variable, with educational only and mixed interventions having little or no impact and evidence of insufficient quality to determine the effects of behavioural only interventions. We were unable to determine the impact of interventions on medication-taking ability. The quality of evidence for these findings is low due to heterogeneity and methodological limitations of studies included in the review. Further well-designed RCTs are needed to investigate the effects of interventions for improving medication-taking ability and medication adherence in older adults prescribed multiple medications.