A systematic review assessing the under-representation of elderly adults in COVID-19 trials

The Diversity of Research Participants in Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies Conducted by the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group

Rationale: Women, older individuals, and racial and ethnic minority groups are often underrepresented in research studies. Objectives: We evaluated the demographics and diversity of participants enrolled in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies published by investigators in association with the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. Methods: We performed quantitative content analysis of peer-reviewed RCTs and observational studies from December 1994 to December 2022. For each publication, we extracted participant demographic variables, including sex, gender, age, race or ethnicity, sexual orientation, pregnancy status, language proficiency, income/financial status, housing, education, disability, and geography. Results: A total of 120 publications (28 RCTs, 92 observational studies) included 211,144 enrolled participants. Most (107 of 120; 89.2%) were multicenter studies, and 70% (84 of 120) were conducted exclusively in Canadian centers; 77.5% (93 of 120) studies enrolled adult participants, and 19.2% (23 of 120) enrolled pediatric participants. All studies reported participant mean or median age, 118 (98.3%) reported binary sex or gender, and 9 (7.5%) reported race or ethnicity. No justification was provided in 35 studies that listed pregnancy as an exclusion. There was infrequent reporting of housing (n = 4), employment (n = 2), income (n = 2), and education (n = 1). No studies reported the language proficiency, sexual orientation, disability, or geography of participants. Of the studies reporting gender, women and/or girls comprised 42.3% participants (range, 8.9-67.7%). Within nine studies reporting race or ethnicity of 2,950 participants, 59.7% were White, 8% South Asian, 7% Indigenous, 3% Asian, 1% Black, 14% unknown, and 6% "other." Conclusions: Research publications from the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group infrequently report important participant demographics, and diversity of research participants is disproportionate compared with Canadian societal demographics.

Epidemiology of Cancer in Older Adults: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

What are the prevalence, incidence and mortality rates of cancer among individuals aged 60 or older on a national, regional, and global scale? What factors affect differences in cancer survival between older and younger adults?

RECENT FINDINGS

The epidemiological literature on cancer in older adults, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and that focusing on the oldest adults, is expanding. These studies consistently show increasing global cancer incidence rates in older populations. Recent research also highlights a widening survival gap between middle-aged and older adults, with the stage at diagnosis being the primary driver. More research is needed to describe the cancer burden in older adults, especially focusing on the oldest population and LMICs, to better understand global healthcare challenges. Additionally, further exploring patient-related, clinical, and tumour-related factors which drive age-related survival differences could improve cancer outcomes in older adults.

Critically Ill Older Adults' Representation in Intervention Trials: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Older adults may be under-represented in critical care research, and results may not apply to this specific population. Our primary objective was to evaluate the prevalence of inclusion of older adults across critical care trials focused on common ICU conditions or interventions. Our secondary objective was to evaluate whether older age was used as a stratification variable for randomization or outcome analysis.

DESIGN SETTING AND SUBJECTS

We performed a systematic review of previously published systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in critical care. We searched PubMed, Ovid, CENTRAL, and Cochrane from 2009 to 2022. Systematic reviews of any interventions across five topics: acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis/shock, nutrition, sedation, and mobilization were eligible.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 216 systematic reviews and included a total of 253 RCTs and 113,090 patients. We extracted baseline characteristics and the reported proportion of older adults. We assessed whether any upper age limit was an exclusion criterion for trials, whether age was used for stratification during randomization or data analysis, and if age-specific subgroup analysis was present. The most prevalent topic was sepsis (78 trials, 31%), followed by nutrition (62 trials, 25%), ARDS (39 trials, 15%), mobilization (38 trials, 15%), and sedation (36 trials, 14%). Eighteen trials (7%) had exclusion criteria based on older age. Age distribution with information on older adults prevalence was given in six trials (2%). Age was considered in the analysis of ten trials (5%) using analytic methods to evaluate the outcome stratified by age.

Conclusions

In this systematic review, the proportion of older critically ill patients is undetermined, and it is unclear how age is or is not an effect modifier or to what extent the results are valid for older adult groups. Reporting age is important to guide clinicians in personalizing care. These results highlight the importance of incorporating older critically ill patients in future trials to ensure the results are generalizable to this growing population.

Sex differences in health-related quality of life and poverty risk among older people living with HIV in Spain: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Current antiretroviral therapies have increased the life expectancy of people living with HIV (PLHIV). There is, however, limited evidence regarding the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and living conditions of older people living with HIV (OPLHIV) in Spain.

METHODS

We implemented a self-administered online questionnaire to identify sex differences in HRQoL and poverty risk among Spanish OPLHIV (PLHIV ≥50 years). Participants were contacted through non-governmental organisations. We used the standardised WHOQoL-HIV BREF questionnaire and the Europe 2020 guidelines to estimate HRQoL and poverty risk respectively. The statistical analysis included multivariable generalised linear models with potential confounding variables and robust estimates.

RESULTS

The study included 247 OPLHIV (192 men and 55 women). On the WHOQoL-HIV BREF questionnaire, men scored higher on 84% of items and in all six domains. Women had significantly lower HRQoL in five domains: physical health (β: -1.5; 95% CI: -2.5, -0.5; p: 0.002), psychological health (β: -1.0; 95% CI: -1.9, -0.1; p: 0.036), level of independence (β: -1.1; 95% CI: -1.9, -0.2; p: 0.019), environmental health (β: -1.1; 95% CI: -1.8, -0.3; p: 0.008), and spirituality/personal beliefs (β: -1.4; 95% CI: -2.5, -0.3; p: 0.012). No statistical differences were found in the domain of social relations. Poverty risk was considerable for both men (30%) and women (53%), but women were significantly more likely to experience it (OR: 2.9; 95% CI: 1.3, 6.5; p: 0.009).

CONCLUSION

The aging of PLHIV is a public health concern. Our findings indicate that HRQoL and poverty risk among Spanish OPLHIV differ significantly by sex. Spain should, therefore, implement specific policies and interventions to address OPLHIV needs. The strategies must place a high priority on the reduction of sex inequalities in HRQoL and the enhancement of the structural conditions in which OPLHIV live.

SARS-CoV-2 infection and cognition in community-dwelling and nursing home residents in southern Switzerland

Background

COVID-19 patients can report 'brain fog' and may exhibit cognitive symptoms for months after recovery (Cognitive COVID). However, evidence on whether and the extent to which SARS-CoV-2 infection impacts cognition irrespective of COVID-19 course and severity is limited to clinical samples and mainly comes from prognostic studies. We aimed to explore the association between serologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and cognitive functioning in community-based and institutionalized older adults, irrespective of COVID-19 symptoms.

Methods

We conducted a case-control study nested into two cohorts in Southern Switzerland. Eligible subjects were Italian speaking older adults, without a previous diagnosis of dementia, who underwent serological testing for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies between November 2020 and July 2021. We manually selected age-, sex- and education-matched cases (i.e., individuals with a serologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection), with seronegative controls, and we conducted in-person neuropsychological assessments using validated, highly sensitive cognitive tests.

Results

We completed 38 neuropsychological assessments in a mostly female sample of older adults (Mean age: 83.13 ± 8.95; 86.8% women). 17 were community dwelling individuals while 21 lived in a nursing home. As expected, socio-demographic characteristics of age, gender and educational level were similarly distributed between cases (n = 14) and controls (n = 24). In linear regression models, cases had significantly lower scores in cognitive tasks of memory (β = -0.367, p = 0.023), attention (β = 0.428, p = 0.008) and executive functions (β = 0.326, p = 0.046). We found no significant difference in tests of language and spatial-temporal orientation (all p values > 0.05).

Conclusions

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with cognitive impairment in memory, attention, and executive functions in older adults. Our findings are consistent with mechanistic evidence of the neurotropism of the virus and provide empirical support for the "Cognitive COVID" construct also in non-clinical samples. With nearly 800 million COVID-19 cases (in April 2023), and many more infections worldwide, the clinical and public health implications of Cognitive COVID due to SARS-CoV-2 infection may be massive and warrant further epidemiological investigations.

Supporting older patients in making healthcare decisions: The effectiveness of decision aids; A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review randomized controlled trials and clinical controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of Decision Aids (DAs) compared to usual care or alternative interventions for older patients facing treatment, screening, or care decisions.

METHODS

A systematic search of several databases was conducted. Eligible studies included patients ≥ 65 years or reported a mean of ≥ 70 years. Primary outcomes were attributes of the choice made and decision making process, user experience and ways in which DAs were tailored to older patients. Meta-analysis was conducted, if possible, or outcomes were synthesized descriptively.

RESULTS

Overall, 15 studies were included. Using DAs were effective in increasing knowledge (SMD 0.90; 95% CI [0.48, 1.32]), decreasing decisional conflict (SMD -0.15; 95% CI [-0.29, -0.01]), improving patient-provider communication (RR 1.67; 95% CI [1.21, 2.29]), and preparing patients to make an individualized decision (MD 35.7%; 95% CI [26.8, 44.6]). Nine studies provided details on how the DA was tailored to older patients.

CONCLUSION

This review shows a number of favourable results for the effectiveness of DAs in decision making with older patients.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Current DAs can be used to support shared decision making with older patients when faced with treatment, screening or care decisions.

Hippocampal alterations after SARS-CoV-2 infection: A systematic review

SARS-CoV-2 infection produces a wide range of symptoms. Some of the structural changes caused by the virus in the nervous system are found in the medial temporal lobe, and several neuropsychological sequelae of COVID-19 are related to the function of the hippocampus. The main objective of the systematic review is to update and further analyze the existing evidence of hippocampal and related cortices' structural and functional alterations due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Both clinical and preclinical studies that used different methodologies to explore the effects of this disease at different stages and grades of severity were considered, besides exploring related cognitive and emotional symptomatology. A total of 24 studies were identified by searching in SCOPUS, Web Of Science (WOS), PubMed, and PsycInfo databases up to October 3rd, 2022. Thirteen studies were performed in clinical human samples, 9 included preclinical animal models, 3 were performed post-mortem, and 1 included both post-mortem and preclinical samples. Alterations in the hippocampus were detected in the acute stage and after several months of infection. Clinical studies revealed alterations in hippocampal connectivity and metabolism. Memory alterations correlated with altered metabolic profiles or changes in grey matter volumes. Hippocampal human postmortem and animal studies observed alterations in neurogenesis, dendrites, and immune response, besides high apoptosis and neuroinflammation. Preclinical studies reported the viral load in the hippocampus. Olfactory dysfunction was associated with alterations in brain functionality. Several clinical studies revealed cognitive complaints, neuropsychological alterations, and depressive and anxious symptomatology.

Systematic review of research barriers, facilitators, and stakeholders in long-term care and geriatric settings, and a conceptual mapping framework to build research capacity

BACKGROUND

Older adults are underrepresented in research. Heterogeneity of research processes in this population, specifically in long-term care (LTC) and geriatric acute care (GAC), is not well described and may impede the design, planning, and conduct of research. In this study, we identified, quantified, and mapped stakeholders, research stages, and transversal themes of research processes, to develop a mapping framework to improve research capacity by better characterizing this heterogeneity.

METHODS

Multicomponent mixed methods study. An environmental scan was used to initiate a preliminary framework. We conducted a systematic literature search on processes, barriers, and methods for clinical research in GAC and LTC to extract and update stakeholders, research stages, and themes. Importance and interactions of elements were synthesized via heatmaps by number of articles, mentions, and content intersections.

RESULTS

For our initial framework and environmental scan, we surveyed 24 stakeholders. Of 9277 records, 68 articles were included in our systematic review and allowed us to identify 12 stakeholders, 13 research stages, 17 transversal themes (either barriers, facilitators, general themes, or recommendations), and 1868 intersections. Differences in relative importance between LTC and GAC emerged for stakeholders (staff, managers vs. caregivers, ethics committees), and for research stages (funding, facility recruitment vs. ethics, individual recruitment). Crucial themes according to specific stakeholders were collaboration for the research team; communication, trust, and human resources for managers; heterogeneity for patients and residents. A heatmap framework synthesizing vital stakeholders and themes per research stage was generated.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified and quantified the interactions between stakeholders, stages, and themes to characterize heterogeneity in LTC and GAC research. Our framework may serve as a blueprint to co-construct and improve each stage of the research process.

Post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 in older persons: multi-organ complications and mortality

INTRODUCTION

Evidence on long-term associations between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and risks of multi-organ complications and mortality in older population is limited. This study evaluates these associations.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The cohorts included patients aged ≥60 year diagnosed with COVID-19 infection (cases), between 16 March 2020 and 31 May 2021 from the UK Biobank; and between 01 April 2020 and 31 May 2022 from the electronic health records in Hong Kong. Each patient was randomly matched with individuals without COVID-19 infection based on year of birth and sex and were followed for up to 18 months until 31 August 2021 for UKB, and up to 28 months until 15 August 2022 for HK cohort. Patients with COVID-19 infection over 6 months after the date of last dose of vaccination and their corresponding controls were excluded from our study. Characteristics between cohorts were further adjusted with Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting. For evaluating long-term association of COVID-19 with multi-organ disease complications and mortality after 21-days of diagnosis, Cox regression was employed.

RESULT

10,759 (UKB) and 165,259 (HK) older adults with COVID-19 infection with matched 291,077 (UKB) and 1,100,394 (HK) non-COVID-19-diagnosed older adults were recruited. Older adults with COVID-19 were associated with a significantly higher risk of cardiovascular outcomes [major cardiovascular disease (stroke, heart failure and coronary heart disease): hazard ratio(UKB): 1.4 (95% Confidence interval: 1.1,1.6), HK:1.2 (95% CI: 1.1,1.3)]; myocardial infarction: HR(UKB): 1.8 (95% CI: 1.3,2.4), HK:1.2 (95% CI: 1.0,1.4)]; respiratory outcomes [interstitial lung disease: HR(UKB: 3.4 (95% CI: 2.5,4.5), HK: 4.0 (95% CI: 1.3,12.8); chronic pulmonary disease: HR(UKB): 1.7 (95% CI: 1.3,2.2), HK:1.6 (95% CI: 1.3,2.1)]; neuropsychiatric outcomes [seizure: HR(UKB): 2.6 (95% CI: 1.7,4.1), HK: 1.6 (95% CI: 1.2,2.1)]; and renal outcomes [acute kidney disease: HR(UKB): 1.4 (95% CI: 1.1,1.6), HK:1.6 (95% CI: 1.3,2.1)]; and all-cause mortality [HR(UKB): 4.9 (95% CI: 4.4,5.4), HK:2.5 (95% CI: 2.5,2.6)].

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 is associated with long-term risks of multi-organ complications in older adults (aged ≥ 60). Infected patients in this age-group may benefit from appropriate monitoring of signs/symptoms for developing these complications.

Evaluating Demographic Representation in Clinical Trials: Use of the Adaptive Coronavirus Disease 2019 Treatment Trial (ACTT) as a Test Case

Background

Clinical trials initiated during emerging infectious disease outbreaks must quickly enroll participants to identify treatments to reduce morbidity and mortality. This may be at odds with enrolling a representative study population, especially when the population affected is undefined.

Methods

We evaluated the utility of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET), the COVID-19 Case Surveillance System (CCSS), and 2020 United States (US) Census data to determine demographic representation in the 4 stages of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT). We compared the cumulative proportion of participants by sex, race, ethnicity, and age enrolled at US ACTT sites, with respective 95% confidence intervals, to the reference data in forest plots.

Results

US ACTT sites enrolled 3509 adults hospitalized with COVID-19. When compared with COVID-NET, ACTT enrolled a similar or higher proportion of Hispanic/Latino and White participants depending on the stage, and a similar proportion of African American participants in all stages. In contrast, ACTT enrolled a higher proportion of these groups when compared with US Census and CCSS. The proportion of participants aged ≥65 years was either similar or lower than COVID-NET and higher than CCSS and the US Census. The proportion of females enrolled in ACTT was lower than the proportion of females in the reference datasets.

Conclusions

Although surveillance data of hospitalized cases may not be available early in an outbreak, they are a better comparator than US Census data and surveillance of all cases, which may not reflect the population affected and at higher risk of severe disease.

Skin and soft tissue infections in the elderly

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To highlight the peculiarity of skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) in elderly patients and to provide useful elements for their optimal management.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the COVID-19 era, early discharge from the hospital and implementation of outpatient management is of key importance.

SUMMARY

Elderly patients are at high risk of SSTIs due to several factors, including presence of multiple comorbidities and skin factors predisposing to infections. Clinical presentation may be atypical and some signs of severity, such as fever and increase in C-reactive protein, may be absent or aspecific in this patients population. An appropriate diagnosis of SSTIs in the elderly is crucial to avoid antibiotic overtreatment. Further studies should explore factors associated with bacterial superinfections in patients with pressure ulcers or lower limb erythema. Since several risk factors for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) may coexist in elderly patients, these subjects should be carefully screened for MRSA risk factors and those with high risk of resistant etiology should receive early antibiotic therapy active against MRSA. Physicians should aim to several objectives, including clinical cure, patient safety, early discharge and return to community. SSTIs in the elderly may be managed using long-acting antibiotics, but clinical follow-up is needed.

SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines, Vaccine Development Technologies, and Significant Efforts in Vaccine Development during the Pandemic: The Lessons Learned Might Help to Fight against the Next Pandemic

We are currently approaching three years since the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 has caused extensive disruptions in everyday life, public health, and the global economy. Thus far, the vaccine has worked better than expected against the virus. During the pandemic, we experienced several things, such as the virus and its pathogenesis, clinical manifestations, and treatments; emerging variants; different vaccines; and the vaccine development processes. This review describes how each vaccine has been developed and approved with the help of modern technology. We also discuss critical milestones during the vaccine development process. Several lessons were learned from different countries during the two years of vaccine research, development, clinical trials, and vaccination. The lessons learned during the vaccine development process will help to fight the next pandemic.

Vulnerability, ageism, and health: is it helpful to label older adults as a vulnerable group in health care?

Despite the diversity of ageing, society and academics often describe and label older persons as a vulnerable group. As the term vulnerability is frequently interchangeably used with frailty, dependence, or loss of autonomy, a connection between older age and deficits is promoted. Concerning this, the question arises to what extent it may be helpful to refer to older persons as vulnerable specifically in the context of health care. After analyzing different notions of vulnerability, I argue that it is illegitimate to conclude that older age is related to increased vulnerability. Much more, identifying older adults as a vulnerable group is closely related to ageism and can be associated with paternalistic benevolence and a tendency to overprotection, especially within health care. Additionally, even though older adults are more often in situations of increased vulnerability due to their potentially higher need for health care, I argue further that older adults mainly become a vulnerable group due to ageism. In this way, it can be concluded that the vulnerability of older adults does not originate in certain attributes of the group, but arises from a characteristic of society and, in turn, health personnel, namely ageism. Labeling older adults as vulnerable therefore is only helpful, when it is used to raise awareness of the widespread ageism in society, in this context, especially in the setting of health care, and the negative consequences thereof for older adults.

Procalcitonin to reduce exposure to antibiotics and individualise treatment in hospitalised old patients with pneumonia: a randomised study

BACKGROUND

Treating pneumonia in old patients remains challenging for clinicians. Moreover, bacterial antimicrobial resistance is a major public health threat.

OBJECTIVE

The PROPAGE study evaluated the interest of a strategy using serial measurements of procalcitonin (PCT) to reduce the duration of antibiotic therapy in old patients with pneumonia.

METHODS

PROPAGE took place from Dec.-2013 to Jun.-2016 in eight French geriatric units. It was a prospective, comparative, randomised, open-label study involving old patients (≥ 80 years) who had initiated antibiotic treatment for pneumonia in the previous 48 h. PCT was monitored in all patients and two decision-making PCT-based algorithms guided antibiotic therapy in patients from the PCT group.

RESULTS

107 patients were randomised (PCT, n = 50; Control, n = 57). Antibiotic therapy exposure was reduced in the PCT group as compared to the Control group (median duration of antibiotic therapy, 8 vs. 10 days [rank-test, p = 0.001]; antibiotic persistence rates on Days 6 and 8, 54% and 44% vs. 91% and 72%) and no significant difference was found in recovery rate (84% vs. 89.5%; Pearson Chi² test, p = 0.402).

CONCLUSION

Although, the superiority of the strategy was not tested using a composite criterion combining antibiotic therapy duration and recovery rate was not tested due to the small sample size, the present study showed that monitoring associated with PCT-guided algorithm could help shorten antibiotic treatment duration in the very old patients without detrimental effects. Measuring PCT levels between Day 4 and Day 6 could be helpful when making the decision regarding antibiotic discontinuation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02173613. This study was first registered on 25/06/2014.

Barriers to and solutions for representative inclusion across the lifespan and in life course research: The need for structural competency highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic

Exclusion of special populations (older adults; pregnant women, children, and adolescents; individuals of lower socioeconomic status and/or who live in rural communities; people from racial and ethnic minority groups; individuals from sexual or gender minority groups; and individuals with disabilities) in research is a pervasive problem, despite efforts and policy changes by the National Institutes of Health and other organizations. These populations are adversely impacted by social determinants of health (SDOH) that reduce access and ability to participate in biomedical research. In March 2020, the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute hosted the "Lifespan and Life Course Research: integrating strategies" "Un-Meeting" to discuss barriers and solutions to underrepresentation of special populations in biomedical research. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted how exclusion of representative populations in research can increase health inequities. We applied findings of this meeting to perform a literature review of barriers and solutions to recruitment and retention of representative populations in research and to discuss how findings are important to research conducted during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. We highlight the role of SDOH, review barriers and solutions to underrepresentation, and discuss the importance of a structural competency framework to improve research participation and retention among special populations.

The association between self-rated health and all-cause mortality and explanatory factors in China's oldest-old population

Background

Self-rated health (SRH) is considered a condensed summary of information about bodily conditions that involves people’s biological, cognitive, and cultural status, but has been under-studied in the oldest old population. This study aimed to investigate the association between SRH and all-cause mortality among the oldest-old population in China and to explore potential explanatory factors in this association.

Methods

The study was based on the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey (CLHLS) from 1998 to 2018 and included 30 222 participants aged 80 years or older (ie, the oldest old) in the analysis. We used Cox models to assess the association between SRH and mortality in this population and its subgroups, and used the Percentage Excess Risk Mediated approach to identify potential contributing factors.

Results

After adjustment of confounders, people with “good” “neutral”, and “bad/very bad” SRH were significantly associated with 8% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 3%-13%), 23% (95% CI = 18%-29%), and 52% (95% CI = 44%-61%) higher hazard of mortality respectively, compared with those with “very good” SRH. The significant SRH-mortality associations were exclusive to men and those with at least primary education. The adjustment of “regular physical activity”, “leisure activity”, “activities of daily living (ADL)”, and “cognitive function” all led to noticeable attenuation to the SRH-mortality association, with “leisure activity” causing the most attenuation (64.9%) in the “Good SRH” group.

Conclusions

Self-rated health is significantly associated with all-cause mortality among the oldest old population in China, particularly among men and the educated, and is considerably explained by regular physical activity, leisure activity, ADL, and cognitive function. We advocate the use of SRH as a simple and efficient tool in research and (potentially) health care practices.

Antibody and cellular immune responses following dual COVID-19 vaccination within infection-naive residents of long-term care facilities: an observational cohort study

Background

Older age and frailty are risk factors for poor clinical outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection. As such, COVID-19 vaccination has been prioritised for individuals with these factors, but there is concern that immune responses might be impaired due to age-related immune dysregulation and comorbidity. We aimed to study humoral and cellular responses to COVID-19 vaccines in residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs).

Methods

In this observational cohort study, we assessed antibody and cellular immune responses following COVID-19 vaccination in members of staff and residents at 74 LTCFs across the UK. Staff and residents were eligible for inclusion if it was possible to link them to a pseudo-identifier in the COVID-19 datastore, if they had received two vaccine doses, and if they had given a blood sample 6 days after vaccination at the earliest. There were no comorbidity exclusion criteria. Participants were stratified by age (<65 years or ≥65 years) and infection status (previous SARS-CoV-2 infection [infection-primed group] or SARS-CoV-2 naive [infection-naive group]). Anticoagulated edetic acid (EDTA) blood samples were assessed and humoral and cellular responses were quantified.

Findings

Between Dec 11, 2020, and June 27, 2021, blood samples were taken from 220 people younger than 65 years (median age 51 years [IQR 39-61]; 103 [47%] had previously had a SARS-CoV-2 infection) and 268 people aged 65 years or older of LTCFs (median age 87 years [80-92]; 144 [43%] had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection). Samples were taken a median of 82 days (IQR 72-100) after the second vaccination. Antibody responses following dual vaccination were strong and equivalent between participants younger then 65 years and those aged 65 years and older in the infection-primed group (median 125 285 Au/mL [1128 BAU/mL] for <65 year olds vs 157 979 Au/mL [1423 BAU/mL] for ≥65 year olds; p=0·47). The antibody response was reduced by 2·4-times (467 BAU/mL; p≤0·0001) in infection-naive people younger than 65 years and 8·1-times (174 BAU/mL; p≤0·0001) in infection-naive residents compared with their infection-primed counterparts. Antibody response was 2·6-times lower in infection-naive residents than in infection-naive people younger than 65 years (p=0·0006). Impaired neutralisation of delta (1.617.2) variant spike binding was also apparent in infection-naive people younger than 65 years and in those aged 65 years and older. Spike-specific T-cell responses were also significantly enhanced in the infection-primed group. Infection-naive people aged 65 years and older (203 SFU per million [IQR 89-374]) had a 52% lower T-cell response compared with infection-naive people younger than 65 years (85 SFU per million [30-206]; p≤0·0001). Post-vaccine spike-specific CD4 T-cell responses displayed single or dual production of IFN-γ and IL-2 were similar across infection status groups, whereas the infection-primed group had an extended functional profile with TNFα and CXCL10 production.

Interpretation

These data reveal suboptimal post-vaccine immune responses within infection-naive residents of LTCFs, and they suggest the need for optimisation of immune protection through the use of booster vaccination.

Funding

UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

One-Year Report of COVID-19 Impact on Geriatric Patients: a Bio-Psycho-Social Approach

Background

Since December of 2019, coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) has spread rapidly around the world. Our understanding of the infection has grown over the past year, and its impact on older adults is particularly significant. Apart from the direct impacts of COVID-19 infections, it has also led to lockdowns which, in turn, result in isolation and loneliness.

Method

We conducted a literature review of publicly available articles of the COVID-19 pandemic impact on the geriatric population between December 2019 and April 2021, a total of 748 articles.

Results

The review will be presented with the Bio-Psycho-Social model, covering how the biological, psychological, and sociological aspects of health are intertwined and impact older adults. Early studies have also highlighted the prevalence of post-COVID infection symptoms that typically fall under geriatric medicine care. We highlight the bidirectional impact of isolation and COVID-19 infections on geriatric health, as well as discuss pertinent topics such as vaccine efficacy, long-term sequelae of COVID-19 infections, and ageism.

Conclusion

This review seeks to present a one-year report of what is known about COVID-19 and geriatric medicine, as well as provide guidance to practitioners who care for older adults based on the most up-to-date literature.

Caring for older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients represent a high-risk group with increased risk of death from COVID-19. Despite the number of published studies, several unmet needs in care for older adults exist.

OBJECTIVES

To discuss unmet needs of COVID-19 in this special population.

SOURCES

A literature review for studies on COVID-19 in elderly patients published between December 2019 and November 2021 was performed. Clinical questions were formulated to guide the literature search. The search was conducted in the MEDLINE database, combining specific search terms. Two reviewers independently conducted the search and selected the studies according to the prespecified clinical questions.

CONTENT

Elderly patients with COVID-19 have peculiar characteristics. They may have atypical clinical presentation, with no fever and with delirium or neurological manifestations as the most common signs, with potential delayed diagnosis and increased risk of death. The reported fatality rates among elderly patients with COVID-19 are extremely high. Several factors, including comorbidities, atypical presentation, and exclusion from intensive care unit care, contribute to this excess of mortality. Age alone is frequently used as a key factor to exclude the elderly from intensive care, but there is evidence that frailty rather than age better predicts the risk of poor outcome in this category. Durability of vaccine efficacy in the elderly remains debated, and the need for a third booster dose is becoming increasingly evident. Finally, efforts to care for elderly patients who have survived after acute COVID-19 should be implemented, considering the high rates of long COVID sequelae and the risk of longitudinal functional and cognitive decline.

IMPLICATIONS

We highlight peculiar aspects of COVID-19 in elderly patients and factors contributing to high risk of poor outcome in this category. We also illuminated gaps in current evidence, suggesting future research directions and underlining the need for further studies on the optimal management of elderly patients with COVID-19.

Sleep monitoring challenges in patients with neurocognitive disorders: A cross-sectional analysis of missing data from activity trackers

Background and Aims

Activity monitors, such as Fitbits®, are being used increasingly for research purposes and data have been validated in healthy community-dwelling older adults. Given the lack of research in older adults with neurocognitive disorders, we investigated the consistency of sleep data recorded from a wrist-worn activity monitor in this population.

Methods

Fitbit® activity monitors were worn by hospitalized older adults as part of a parent study investigating sleep and step count in patients recovering from hip fracture surgery in a tertiary care academic hospital in Hamilton, Canada between March 2018 and June 2019. In this secondary analysis, we compared the proportion of missing sleep data between participants with and without a neurocognitive disorder and used a multivariable model to assess the association between neurocognitive disorder and missing sleep data.

Results

Of 67 participants included in the analysis, 22 had a neurocognitive disorder (median age: 86.5 years). Sleep data were missing for 47% of the neurocognitive disorder group and 23% of the non-neurocognitive disorder group. The presence of a neurocognitive disorder was associated with an increased likelihood of missing sleep data using the Fitbit® activity monitors (adjusted odds ratio: 3.41; 95% confidence interval: 1.06-11.73, p = 0.04).

Conclusion

The inconsistent nature of sleep data tracking in hospitalized older adults with neurocognitive disorders highlights the challenges of using interventions in patient populations who are often excluded from validation studies. As opportunities expand for activity monitoring in persons with neurocognitive disorders, novel technologies not previously studied in this group should be used with caution.

Attention for sex in COVID-19 trials: a review of regulatory dossiers

An under-representation of women and a lack of sex-specific analyses in COVID-19 trials has been suggested. However, the higher number of men than women who are severely affected by COVID-19 and the restricted information in scientific publications may have biased these suggestions. Therefore, we evaluated sex proportionality and sex-specific efficacy and safety data in trials of COVID-19 treatments and vaccines using both publicly available regulatory documents and confidential documents used by regulators in their review of medicinal products. Included were two treatments (ie, remdesivir and dexamethasone) and four vaccines (ie, BNT162b2 mRNA (BioNTech/Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), ChAdOx1-S (AstraZeneca) and Ad26.COV2-S (Janssen)) that received marketing authorisation by the European Commission at the time of the study conduct. An under-representation of women was shown in three of the nine data sets for one treatment (ie, remdesivir), but the proportion of women included was representative in each of the data sets for the other five products. This indicates that there is no structural under-representation of women in the COVID-19 trials. Currently, sex-specific efficacy data are available for five of the six assessed products and sex-specific safety data are available for half of the products only. It is important that this information will also be made available for the other products. There are only small differences in efficacy and safety between men and women which are likely to be of limited clinical relevance. Sex-specific efficacy information can generally be found in the publicly available regulatory documents other than the Summary of Product Characteristics, for which more awareness might be required.

Early Effectiveness of Four SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines in Preventing COVID-19 among Adults Aged ≥60 Years in Vojvodina, Serbia

Real-world evidence of the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of different COVID-19 vaccines is needed in order to better shape vaccine recommendations and policies and increase vaccine acceptance, especially among vulnerable populations such as the elderly. We analyzed the early effectiveness of four COVID-19 vaccines, namely BNT162b2, BBIBP-CorV, Gam-COVID-Vac and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in population aged ≥60 years for symptomatic, mild and severe COVID-19, in the period January–April 2021 in Vojvodina, a northern province of Serbia. Incidence rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection were calculated using data from the provincial COVID-19 surveillance registry, and vaccination coverage data were obtained from the nationwide registry of administered COVID-19 vaccines. During the observation period, 134,535 subjects aged ≥60 years were fully vaccinated, of whom 87.7% received BBIBP-CorV, 7.1% BNT162b2 and 5.2% Gam-COVID-Vac vaccines. The estimated VE in fully vaccinated persons was 86.9% (95% CI, 86–87.7) for BBIBP-CorV, 95% (95% CI, 92.4–96.7) for Gam-COVID-Vac and 99% (95% CI, 97.8–99.5) for BNT162b2, while VE after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was 88.6% (95% CI, 80.5–93.4). Estimates were similar when stratifying the analyses to severe and mild SARS-CoV-2 infections. Our analysis provides evidence of high early effectiveness of BNT162b2, BBIBP-CorV, Gam-COVID-Vac and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in elderly people in preventing symptomatic, severe and mild COVID-19 disease, particularly after being fully vaccinated.

Evaluation of Prognostic and Predictive Models in the Oncology Clinic

Predictive and prognostic models hold great potential to support clinical decision making in oncology and could ultimately facilitate a paradigm shift to a more personalised form of treatment. While a large number of models relevant to the field of oncology have been developed, few have been translated into clinical use and assessment of clinical utility is not currently considered a routine part of model development. In this narrative review of the clinical evaluation of prediction models in oncology, we propose a high-level process diagram for the life cycle of a clinical model, encompassing model commissioning, clinical implementation and ongoing quality assurance, which aims to bridge the gap between model development and clinical implementation.

Real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines: a literature review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness (VE) against concerned outcomes in real-world settings.

METHODS

Studies reporting COVID-19 VE from August 6, 2020 to October 6, 2021 were included. The summary VE (with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI)) against disease related to COVID-19 was estimated. The results were presented in forest plots. Predefined subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 51 records were included in this meta-analysis. In fully vaccinated populations, the VE against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, COVID-19-related hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit, and death was 89.1% (95% CI 85.6-92.6%), 97.2% (95% CI 96.1-98.3%), 97.4% (95% CI 96.0-98.8%), and 99.0% (95% CI 98.5-99.6%), respectively. The VE against infection in the general population aged ≥16 years, the elderly, and healthcare workers was 86.1% (95% CI 77.8-94.4%), 83.8% (95% CI 77.1-90.6%), and 95.3% (95% CI 92.0-98.6%), respectively. For those fully vaccinated against infection, the observed effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 91.2% and of the Moderna vaccine was 98.1%, while the effectiveness of the CoronaVac vaccine was found to be 65.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 vaccines are highly protective against SARS-CoV-2-related diseases in real-world settings.

A Predictive Study Between Anxiety and Fear of COVID-19 With Psychological Behavior Response: The Mediation Role of Perceived Stress

OBJECTIVE

Despite the abundance of studies linking fear and anxiety to COVID-19, there are limited studies that examine how these elements impact psychological behavioral responses, especially in Iran. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between anxiety and fear of COVID-19 with psychological behavior response, whether this relationship is mediated by role of perceived stress among Iranian population during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

A predictive cross-sectional study was used to investigate the relationships between COVID-19 anxiety syndrome, fear of COVID-19 with psychological behavioral responses due to the pandemic, and the mediating role of the COVID-19 perceived stress in these relationships.

RESULTS

The current study revealed that during the COVID-19 pandemic, fear and anxiety of COVID-19 can influence the psychological behavioral responses of individuals; however, this can be explained through perceived stress.

CONCLUSION

As such, the current study points out that the individuals who perceived high stress due to COVID-19 were more likely to comply with guidelines, which has given new insight into this field. The current study findings are applicable for health policymakers in order to help them in understanding human behavior for developing health promotion programs and also for fostering resilience among the general population.

What have we learned from the first to the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic? An international survey from the ESCMID Study Group for Infection in the Elderly (ESGIE) group

The purpose of this survey is to explore changes in the management of COVID-19 during the first versus the second wave, with particular emphasis on therapies, antibiotic prescriptions, and elderly care. An internet-based questionnaire survey was distributed to European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) members. Therapeutic approach to patients with mild-to-moderate (PiO₂/FiO₂ 200–350) and severe (PiO₂/FiO₂ < 200) COVID-19, antibiotic use, and reasons for excluding patients from the intensive care unit (ICU) were investigated. A total of 463 from 21 countries participated in the study. Most representatives were infectious disease specialists (68.3%). During the second wave of pandemic, physicians abandoned the use of hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and azithromycin in favor of dexamethasone, low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH), and remdesivir in mild-to-moderate COVID-19. In critically ill patients, we detected an increased use of high-dose steroids (51%) and a decrease in tocilizumab use. The use of antibiotics at hospital admission decreased but remained high in the second wave. Age was reported to be a main consideration for exclusion of patients from ICU care by 25% of responders; a third reported that elderly were not candidates for ICU admission in their center. The decision to exclude patients from ICU care was based on the individual decision of an intensivist in 59.6% of cases. The approach of physicians to COVID-19 changed over time following evidence accumulation and guidelines. Antibiotic use at hospital admission and decision to exclude patients from ICU care remain critical aspects that should be better investigated and harmonized among clinicians.

Vaccine effectiveness of the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 against SARS-CoV-2 infection in residents of long-term care facilities in England (VIVALDI): a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in older adults living in long-term care facilities is uncertain. We investigated the protective effect of the first dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca non-replicating viral-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19; AZD1222) and the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2) in residents of long-term care facilities in terms of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection over time since vaccination.

METHODS

The VIVALDI study is a prospective cohort study that commenced recruitment on June 11, 2020, to investigate SARS-CoV-2 transmission, infection outcomes, and immunity in residents and staff in long-term care facilities in England that provide residential or nursing care for adults aged 65 years and older. In this cohort study, we included long-term care facility residents undergoing routine asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 testing between Dec 8, 2020 (the date the vaccine was first deployed in a long-term care facility), and March 15, 2021, using national testing data linked within the COVID-19 Datastore. Using Cox proportional hazards regression, we estimated the relative hazard of PCR-positive infection at 0-6 days, 7-13 days, 14-20 days, 21-27 days, 28-34 days, 35-48 days, and 49 days and beyond after vaccination, comparing unvaccinated and vaccinated person-time from the same cohort of residents, adjusting for age, sex, previous infection, local SARS-CoV-2 incidence, long-term care facility bed capacity, and clustering by long-term care facility. We also compared mean PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values for positive swabs obtained before and after vaccination. The study is registered with ISRCTN, number 14447421.

FINDINGS

10 412 care home residents aged 65 years and older from 310 LTCFs were included in this analysis. The median participant age was 86 years (IQR 80-91), 7247 (69·6%) of 10 412 residents were female, and 1155 residents (11·1%) had evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. 9160 (88·0%) residents received at least one vaccine dose, of whom 6138 (67·0%) received ChAdOx1 and 3022 (33·0%) received BNT162b2. Between Dec 8, 2020, and March 15, 2021, there were 36 352 PCR results in 670 628 person-days, and 1335 PCR-positive infections (713 in unvaccinated residents and 612 in vaccinated residents) were included. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for PCR-positive infection relative to unvaccinated residents declined from 28 days after the first vaccine dose to 0·44 (95% CI 0·24-0·81) at 28-34 days and 0·38 (0·19-0·77) at 35-48 days. Similar effect sizes were seen for ChAdOx1 (adjusted HR 0·32, 95% CI 0·15-0·66) and BNT162b2 (0·35, 0·17-0·71) vaccines at 35-48 days. Mean PCR Ct values were higher for infections that occurred at least 28 days after vaccination than for those occurring before vaccination (31·3 [SD 8·7] in 107 PCR-positive tests vs 26·6 [6·6] in 552 PCR-positive tests; p<0·0001).

INTERPRETATION

Single-dose vaccination with BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines provides substantial protection against infection in older adults from 4-7 weeks after vaccination and might reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. However, the risk of infection is not eliminated, highlighting the ongoing need for non-pharmaceutical interventions to prevent transmission in long-term care facilities.

FUNDING

UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

Vaccine effectiveness of the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 against SARS-CoV-2 infection in residents of long-term care facilities in England (VIVALDI): a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in older adults living in long-term care facilities is uncertain. We investigated the protective effect of the first dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca non-replicating viral-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19; AZD1222) and the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2) in residents of long-term care facilities in terms of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection over time since vaccination.

METHODS

The VIVALDI study is a prospective cohort study that commenced recruitment on June 11, 2020, to investigate SARS-CoV-2 transmission, infection outcomes, and immunity in residents and staff in long-term care facilities in England that provide residential or nursing care for adults aged 65 years and older. In this cohort study, we included long-term care facility residents undergoing routine asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 testing between Dec 8, 2020 (the date the vaccine was first deployed in a long-term care facility), and March 15, 2021, using national testing data linked within the COVID-19 Datastore. Using Cox proportional hazards regression, we estimated the relative hazard of PCR-positive infection at 0-6 days, 7-13 days, 14-20 days, 21-27 days, 28-34 days, 35-48 days, and 49 days and beyond after vaccination, comparing unvaccinated and vaccinated person-time from the same cohort of residents, adjusting for age, sex, previous infection, local SARS-CoV-2 incidence, long-term care facility bed capacity, and clustering by long-term care facility. We also compared mean PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values for positive swabs obtained before and after vaccination. The study is registered with ISRCTN, number 14447421.

FINDINGS

10 412 care home residents aged 65 years and older from 310 LTCFs were included in this analysis. The median participant age was 86 years (IQR 80-91), 7247 (69·6%) of 10 412 residents were female, and 1155 residents (11·1%) had evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. 9160 (88·0%) residents received at least one vaccine dose, of whom 6138 (67·0%) received ChAdOx1 and 3022 (33·0%) received BNT162b2. Between Dec 8, 2020, and March 15, 2021, there were 36 352 PCR results in 670 628 person-days, and 1335 PCR-positive infections (713 in unvaccinated residents and 612 in vaccinated residents) were included. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for PCR-positive infection relative to unvaccinated residents declined from 28 days after the first vaccine dose to 0·44 (95% CI 0·24-0·81) at 28-34 days and 0·38 (0·19-0·77) at 35-48 days. Similar effect sizes were seen for ChAdOx1 (adjusted HR 0·32, 95% CI 0·15-0·66) and BNT162b2 (0·35, 0·17-0·71) vaccines at 35-48 days. Mean PCR Ct values were higher for infections that occurred at least 28 days after vaccination than for those occurring before vaccination (31·3 [SD 8·7] in 107 PCR-positive tests vs 26·6 [6·6] in 552 PCR-positive tests; p<0·0001).

INTERPRETATION

Single-dose vaccination with BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines provides substantial protection against infection in older adults from 4-7 weeks after vaccination and might reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. However, the risk of infection is not eliminated, highlighting the ongoing need for non-pharmaceutical interventions to prevent transmission in long-term care facilities.

FUNDING

UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

Profile of humoral and cellular immune responses to single doses of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines in residents and staff within residential care homes (VIVALDI): an observational study

BACKGROUND

Residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) have been prioritised for COVID-19 vaccination because of the high COVID-19 mortality in this population. Several countries have implemented an extended interval of up to 12 weeks between the first and second vaccine doses to increase population coverage of single-dose vaccination. We aimed to assess the magnitude and quality of adaptive immune responses following a single dose of COVID-19 vaccine in LTCF residents and staff.

METHODS

From the LTCFs participating in the ongoing VIVALDI study (ISRCTN14447421), staff and residents who had received a first dose of COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2 [tozinameran] or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19), had pre-vaccination and post-vaccination blood samples (collected between Dec 11, 2020, and Feb 16, 2021), and could be linked to a pseudoidentifier in the COVID-19 Data Store were included in our cohort. Past infection with SARS-CoV-2 was defined on the basis of nucleocapsid-specific IgG antibodies being detected through a semiquantitative immunoassay, and participants who tested positive on this assay after but not before vaccination were excluded from the study. Processed blood samples were assessed for spike-specific immune responses, including spike-specific IgG antibody titres, T-cell responses to spike protein peptide mixes, and inhibition of ACE2 binding by spike protein from four variants of SARS-CoV-2 (the original strain as well as the B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and P.1 variants). Responses before and after vaccination were compared on the basis of age, previous infection status, role (staff or resident), and time since vaccination.

FINDINGS

Our cohort comprised 124 participants from 14 LTCFs: 89 (72%) staff (median age 48 years [IQR 35·5-56]) and 35 (28%) residents (87 years [77-90]). Blood samples were collected a median 40 days (IQR 25-47; range 6-52) after vaccination. 30 (24%) participants (18 [20%] staff and 12 [34%] residents) had serological evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. All participants with previous infection had high antibody titres following vaccination that were independent of age (r s=0·076, p=0·70). In participants without evidence of previous infection, titres were negatively correlated with age (r s=-0·434, p<0·0001) and were 8·2-times lower in residents than in staff. This effect appeared to result from a kinetic delay antibody generation in older infection-naive participants, with the negative age correlation disappearing only in samples taken more than 42 days post-vaccination (r s=-0·207, p=0·20; n=40), in contrast to samples taken after 0-21 days (r s=-0·774, p=0·0043; n=12) or 22-42 days (r s=-0·437, p=0·0034; n=43). Spike-specific cellular responses were similar between older and younger participants. In infection-naive participants, antibody inhibition of ACE2 binding by spike protein from the original SARS-CoV-2 strain was negatively correlated with age (r s=-0·439, p<0·0001), and was significantly lower against spike protein from the B.1.351 variant (median inhibition 31% [14-100], p=0·010) and the P.1 variant (23% [14-97], p<0·0001) than against the original strain (58% [27-100]). By contrast, a single dose of vaccine resulted in around 100% inhibition of the spike-ACE2 interaction against all variants in people with a history of infection.

INTERPRETATION

History of SARS-CoV-2 infection impacts the magnitude and quality of antibody response after a single dose of COVID-19 vaccine in LTCF residents. Residents who are infection-naive have delayed antibody responses to the first dose of vaccine and should be considered for an early second dose where possible.

FUNDING

UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

Direct and Indirect Effectiveness of mRNA Vaccination against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Long-Term Care Facilities, Spain

We conducted a registries-based cohort study of long-term care facility residents >65 years of age offered vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 before March 10, 2021, in Spain. Risk for infection in vaccinated and nonvaccinated persons was compared with risk in the same persons in a period before the vaccination campaign, adjusted by daily-varying incidence and reproduction number. We selected 299,209 persons; 99.0% had >1 dose, 92.6% had 2 doses, and 99.8% of vaccines were Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2). For vaccinated persons with no previous infection, vaccine effectiveness was 81.8% (95% CI 81.0%–82.7%), and 11.6 (95% CI 11.3–11.9) cases were prevented per 10,000 vaccinated/day. In those with previous infection, effectiveness was 56.8% (95% CI 47.1%–67.7%). In nonvaccinated residents with no previous infection, risk decreased by up to 81.4% (95% CI 73.3%–90.3%). Our results confirm vaccine effectiveness in this population and suggest indirect protection in nonvaccinated persons.

An Update on Medication Use in Older Adults: a Narrative Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The global phenomenon of population aging is impacting the health and care needs of society. The use of medications by older adults is acknowledged to be the most common form of medical intervention for many acute and chronic conditions and prescribing in this population continues to increase. In this narrative review, we summarise the age-related factors that should be considered when prescribing for older adults, address some of the perennial challenges related to medicine use in older people, and highlight important emerging research in this area.

RECENT FINDINGS

A range of age-related factors should be considered when prescribing for older adults. However, the evidence base still lacks data pertaining to older adults due to their continued under-representation in clinical trials. Multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and inappropriate prescribing continue to remain prevalent among older adults, although recent research has been focused on the development and evaluation of complex interventions to address these challenges.

SUMMARY

Further high-quality studies of interventions to improve and support medication use in older adults are needed, ensuring that older adults are well represented in such trials and consideration is given to the measurement of patient- and provider-focused outcomes.

A review on the COVID-19-related psychological impact on older adults: vulnerable or not?

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 is a novel event of the twenty-first century. Therefore, contemporary research is required to determine the current pandemic's psychological impact on older populations. Soon after the COVID-19 outbreak, several narrative reviews and guidelines were released to support older adult's psychological wellbeing. However, a lack of data from original studies was reported until May 2020.

AIM

To identify studies published from May 2020 until January 2021 that quantitatively assessed the mental health impact of COVID-19 on older adults using validated psychometric tools.

METHOD

A comprehensive literature search of original research articles was conducted using specific terms. The screening procedure was conducted stepwise.

RESULTS

Among the 18 included studies, cross-sectional online surveys indicated that older adults were less psychologically distressed than younger ones. A longitudinal study revealed that COVID-19 did not have a major impact on loneliness and satisfaction with life. On the contrary, studies comparing pre- with peri-pandemic data revealed that older adults experienced more severe depressive/anxiety/stress symptoms and loneliness during the pandemic. Several studies reported though only subclinical symptoms, as well as low loneliness levels during the pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

Research studies suggested that older age may buffer against the COVID-19-related impact on mental health. Despite evidence against generalised perceptions of vulnerability, older adults' ability to adapt to adversity may be uneven, depending on cultural, social, economic and other individual factors. Taken together, the impact, moreover the long-term impact of COVID-19, is expected to vary across countries and older subpopulations, and remains to be evaluated by prospective, longitudinal studies.

Challenges and Lessons Learned From COVID-19 Trials: Should We Be Doing Clinical Trials Differently?

The COVID-19 crisis led to a flurry of clinical trials activity. The COVID-evidence database shows 2814 COVID-19 randomized trials registered as of February 16, 2021. Most were small (only 18% have a planned sample size > 500) and the rare completed ones have not provided published results promptly (only 283 trial publications as of February 2021). Small randomized trials and observational, nonrandomized analyses have not had a successful track record and have generated misleading expectations. Different large trials on the same intervention have generally been far more efficient in producing timely and consistent evidence. The rapid generation of evidence and accelerated dissemination of results have led to new challenges for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (eg, rapid, living, and scoping reviews). Pressure to regulatory agencies has also mounted with massive emergency authorizations, but some of them have had to be revoked. Pandemic circumstances have disrupted the way trials are conducted; therefore, new methods have been developed and adopted more widely to facilitate recruitment, consent, and overall trial conduct. On the basis of the COVID-19 experience and its challenges, planning of several large, efficient trials, and wider use of adaptive designs might change the future of clinical research. Pragmatism, integration in clinical care, efficient administration, promotion of collaborative structures, and enhanced integration of existing data and facilities might be several of the legacies of COVID-19 on future randomized trials.