Health risk appraisal in older people 1: are older people living alone an "at-risk" group?

BACKGROUND: In the UK, population screening for unmet need has failed to improve the health of older people. Attention is turning to interventions targeted at 'at-risk' groups. Living alone in later life is seen as a potential health risk, and older people living alone are thought to be an at-risk group worthy of further intervention. AIM: To explore the clinical significance of living alone and the epidemiology of lone status as an at-risk category, by investigating associations between lone status and health behaviours, health status, and service use, in non-disabled older people. Design of study: Secondary analysis of baseline data from a randomised controlled trial of health risk appraisal in older people. SETTING: Four group practices in suburban London. METHOD: Sixty per cent of 2641 community-dwelling non-disabled people aged 65 years and over registered at a practice agreed to participate in the study; 84% of these returned completed questionnaires. A third of this group, (n = 860, 33.1%) lived alone and two-thirds (n = 1741, 66.9%) lived with someone else. RESULTS: Those living alone were more likely to report fair or poor health, poor vision, difficulties in instrumental and basic activities of daily living, worse memory and mood, lower physical activity, poorer diet, worsening function, risk of social isolation, hazardous alcohol use, having no emergency carer, and multiple falls in the previous 12 months. After adjustment for age, sex, income, and educational attainment, living alone remained associated with multiple falls, functional impairment, poor diet, smoking status, risk of social isolation, and three self-reported chronic conditions: arthritis and/or rheumatism, glaucoma, and cataracts. CONCLUSION: Clinicians working with independently-living older people living alone should anticipate higher levels of disease and disability in these patients, and higher health and social risks, much of which will be due to older age, lower educational status, and female sex. Living alone itself appears to be associated with higher risks of falling, and constellations of pathologies, including visual loss and joint disorders. Targeted population screening using lone status may be useful in identifying older individuals at high risk of falling.

Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts

BACKGROUND: Abstracts of presentations at scientific meetings are usually available only in conference proceedings. If subsequent full publication of abstract results is based on the magnitude or direction of study results, publication bias may result. Publication bias, in turn, creates problems for those conducting systematic reviews or relying on the published literature for evidence. OBJECTIVES: To determine the rate at which abstract results are subsequently published in full, and the time between meeting presentation and full publication. To assess the association between study characteristics and full publication. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, reference lists, and author files. Date of most recent search: June 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all reports that examined the subsequent full publication rate of biomedical results initially presented as abstracts or in summary form. Follow-up of abstracts had to be at least two years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers extracted data. We calculated the weighted mean full publication rate and time to full publication. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using relative risk and random effects models. We assessed time to publication using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Combining data from 79 reports (29,729 abstracts) resulted in a weighted mean full publication rate of 44.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 43.9 to 45.1). Survival analyses resulted in an estimated publication rate at 9 years of 52.6% for all studies, 63.1% for randomized or controlled clinical trials, and 49.3% for other types of study designs.'Positive' results defined as any 'significant' result showed an association with full publication (RR = 1.30; CI 1.14 to 1.47), as did 'positive' results defined as a result favoring the experimental treatment (RR =1.17; CI 1.02 to 1.35), and 'positive' results emanating from randomized or controlled clinical trials (RR = 1.18, CI 1.07 to 1.30).Other factors associated with full publication include oral presentation (RR = 1.28; CI 1.09 to 1.49); acceptance for meeting presentation (RR = 1.78; CI 1.50 to 2.12); randomized trial study design (RR = 1.24; CI 1.14 to 1.36); and basic research (RR = 0.79; CI 0.70 to 0.89). Higher quality of abstracts describing randomized or controlled clinical trials was also associated with full publication (RR = 1.30, CI 1.00 to 1.71). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Only 63% of results from abstracts describing randomized or controlled clinical trials are published in full. 'Positive' results were more frequently published than not 'positive' results.

Impact of hypertension on the outcome of patients admitted with acute coronary syndrome

OBJECTIVE The role of hypertension and its impact on outcome in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is still debated. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of hypertensive and nonhypertensive ACS patients. METHODS Using data of ACS patients enrolled in the Acute Myocardial Infarction in Switzerland Plus Registry from 1997 to 2013, characteristics at presentation and outcomes in hospital and after 1 year were analyzed. Hypertension was defined as previously diagnosed and treated by a physician. The primary endpoint was mortality. Data were analyzed using multiple logistic regressions. RESULTS Among 41 771 ACS patients, 16 855 (40.4%) were without and 24 916 (59.6%) with preexisting hypertension. Patients with preexisting hypertension had a more favorable in-hospital outcome [odds ratio (OR) in-hospital mortality 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73-0.93; P = 0.022]. The independent predictors of in-hospital mortality for patients with preexisting hypertension were age, Killip class greater than 2, Charlson Comorbidity Index greater than 1, no pretreatment with statins and lower admission systemic blood pressure. Preexisting hypertension was not an independent predictor of 1-year mortality in the subgroup of patients (n = 7801) followed: OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.78-1.47; P = 0.68. Independent predictors of mortality 1 year after discharge for the 4796 patients with preexisting hypertension were age, male sex and comorbidities. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor antagonists and statins prescribed at discharge improved the outcomes. CONCLUSION Outcome of ACS patients with preexisting hypertension was associated with an improved in-hospital prognosis after adjustment for their higher baseline risk. However, this effect was not long-lasting and does not necessarily mean a causal relationship exists. Short-term and long-term management of patients with hypertension admitted with ACS could be further improved.