Overweight duration in older adults and cancer risk: a study of cohorts in Europe and the United States

Recent studies have shown that cancer risk related to overweight and obesity is mediated by time and might be better approximated by using life years lived with excess weight. In this study we aimed to assess the impact of overweight duration and intensity in older adults on the risk of developing different forms of cancer. Study participants from seven European and one US cohort study with two or more weight assessments during follow-up were included (n = 329,576). Trajectories of body mass index (BMI) across ages were estimated using a quadratic growth model; overweight duration (BMI ≥ 25) and cumulative weighted overweight years were calculated. In multivariate Cox models and random effects analyses, a longer duration of overweight was significantly associated with the incidence of obesity-related cancer [overall hazard ratio (HR) per 10-year increment: 1.36; 95 % CI 1.12-1.60], but also increased the risk of postmenopausal breast and colorectal cancer. Additionally accounting for the degree of overweight further increased the risk of obesity-related cancer. Risks associated with a longer overweight duration were higher in men than in women and were attenuated by smoking. For postmenopausal breast cancer, increased risks were confined to women who never used hormone therapy. Overall, 8.4 % of all obesity-related cancers could be attributed to overweight at any age. These findings provide further insights into the role of overweight duration in the etiology of cancer and indicate that weight control is relevant at all ages. This knowledge is vital for the development of effective and targeted cancer prevention strategies.

Time-limited home-care reablement services for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults

Background: Reablement, also known as restorative care, is one possible approach to home-care services for older adults at risk of functional decline. Unlike traditional home-care services, reablement is frequently time-limited (usually six to 12 weeks) and aims to maximise independence by offering an intensive multidisciplinary, person-centred and goal-directed intervention. Objectives:Objectives To assess the effects of time-limited home-care reablement services (up to 12 weeks) for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults (aged 65 years or more) when compared to usual home-care or wait-list control group. Search methods:We searched the following databases with no language restrictions during April to June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (OvidSP); Embase (OvidSP); PsycINFO (OvidSP); ERIC; Sociological Abstracts; ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; CINAHL (EBSCOhost); SIGLE (OpenGrey); AgeLine and Social Care Online. We also searched the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews as well as contacting authors in the field.Selection criteria:We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised or quasi-randomised trials of time-limited reablement services for older adults (aged 65 years or more) delivered in their home; and incorporated a usual home-care or wait-list control group. Data collection and analysis:Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and considered quality of the evidence using GRADE. We contacted study authors for additional information where needed.Main results:Two studies, comparing reablement with usual home-care services with 811 participants, met our eligibility criteria for inclusion; we also identified three potentially eligible studies, but findings were not yet available. One included study was conducted in Western Australia with 750 participants (mean age 82.29 years). The second study was conducted in Norway (61 participants; mean age 79 years). We are very uncertain as to the effects of reablement compared with usual care as the evidence was of very low quality for all of the outcomes reported. The main findings were as follows. Functional status: very low quality evidence suggested that reablement may be slightly more effective than usual care in improving function at nine to 12 months (lower scores reflect greater independence; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53 to -0.06; 2 studies with 249 participants). Adverse events: reablement may make little or no difference to mortality at 12 months’ follow-up (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.29; 2 studies with 811 participants) or rates of unplanned hospital admission at 24 months (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03; 1 study with 750 participants). The very low quality evidence also means we are uncertain whether reablement may influence quality of life (SMD -0.23; 95% CI -0.48 to 0.02; 2 trials with 249 participants) or living arrangements (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.34; 1 study with 750 participants) at time points up to 12 months. People receiving reablement may be slightly less likely to have been approved for a higher level of personal care than people receiving usual care over the 24 months’ follow-up (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; 1 trial, 750 participants). Similarly, although there may be a small reduction in total aggregated home and healthcare costs over the 24-month follow-up (reablement: AUD 19,888; usual care: AUD 22,757; 1 trial with 750 participants), we are uncertain about the size and importance of these effects as the results were based on very low quality evidence. Neither study reported user satisfaction with the serviceAuthors’ conclusions:There is considerable uncertainty regarding the effects of reablement as the evidence was of very low quality according to our GRADE ratings. Therefore, the effectiveness of reablement services cannot be supported or refuted until more robust evidence becomes available. There is an urgent need for high quality trials across different health and social care systems due to the increasingly high profile of reablement services in policy and practice in several countries. 

STOPPFrail (Screening Tool of Older Persons Prescriptions in Frail Adults with Limited Life Expectancy): Consensus Validation

Background: To validate STOPPFrail, a list of explicit criteria for potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in frailer older adults with limited life expectancy. A Delphi consensus survey of an expert panel (n = 17) comprising specialists in geriatric medicine, clinical pharmacology, palliative care, psychiatry of old age, clinical pharmacy and general practice.
Methods: STOPPFrail criteria was initially created by the authors based on clinical
experience and appraisal of the available literature. Criteria were organised according to physiological system. Each criterion was accompanied by an explanation. Panellists ranked their agreement with each criterion on a 5-point Likert scale and invited to provide written feedback. Criteria with a median Likert response of 4/5 (agree/strongly agree) and a 25th centile of ≥4 were included in the final criteria.
Results: Three Delphi rounds were required. All panellists completed all rounds. Thirty criteria were proposed for inclusion; 26 were accepted. No new criteria were added. The first two criteria suggest deprescribing medications with no indication or where compliance is poor. The remaining 24 criteria include lipid-lowering therapies, alpha-blockers for hypertension, anti-platelets, neuroleptics, proton pump inhibitors, H-2 receptor antagonists, anti-spasmodics, theophylline, leukotriene antagonists, calcium supplements, bone anti-resorptive therapy, selective oestrogen receptor modulators, non-steroidal antiinflammatories, corticosteroids, 5-alpha reductase inhibitors, alpha-1 selective blockers, muscarinic antagonists, oral diabetic agents, ACE-inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, systemic oestrogens, multivitamins, nutritional supplements and prophylactic antibiotics. Anticoagulants and anti-depressants were excluded. Despite incorporation of panellists’ suggestions, memantine and acetyl-cholinesterase inhibitors remained inconclusive.
Conclusion: STOPPFrail comprises 26 criteria, which have been judged by broad consensus, to be potentially inappropriate in frailer older patients with limited life expectancy. STOPPFrail may assist in deprescribing medications in these patients.

Primary Health Care Providers' Perspectives: Facilitating Older Patients' Access to Community Support Services

The purpose of the study examined in this article was to understand how non-physician health care professionals working in Canadian primary health care settings facilitate older persons’ access to community support services (CSSs). The use of CSSs has positive impacts for clients, yet they are underused from lack of awareness. Using a qualitative description approach, we interviewed 20 health care professionals from various disciplines and primary health care models about the processes they use to link older patients to CSSs. Participants collaborated extensively with interprofessional colleagues within and outside their organizations to fi nd relevant CSSs. They actively engaged patients and families in making these linkages and ensured follow-up. It was troubling to fi nd that they relied on out-of-date resources and ineffi cient search strategies to fi nd CSSs. Our fi ndings can be used to develop resources and approaches to better support primary health care providers in linking older adults to relevant CSSs.