Polypharmacy and Antibody Response to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Residents of Long-Term Care Facilities: The GeroCovid Vax Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Polypharmacy is common in older adults, particularly among those living in long-term care facilities. This condition represents a marker of clinical complexity and might directly affect the immunological response. However, there are limited data on the association of polypharmacy with vaccine immunogenicity. This study evaluated the immune response to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in older residents of long-term care facilities as a function of the number of medications used. METHODS: In 478 long-term care facility residents participating in the GeroCovid Vax study, we assessed SARS-CoV-2 trimeric S IgG levels through chemiluminescent assays before the vaccination and after 2, 6, and 12 months. A booster dose was administered between 6- and 12-month assessments. Sociodemographic information and data on chronic diseases and medications were derived from medical records. Based on the number of daily medications, residents were classified into the no polypharmacy (zero to four medications), polypharmacy (five to nine medications), and hyperpolypharmacy (ten or more medications) groups. RESULTS: In the sample (mean age 82.1 years, 69.2% female), 200 (41.8%) residents were taking five or fewer medications/day (no polypharmacy), 229 (47.9%) had polypharmacy, and 49 (10.3%) had hyperpolypharmacy. Using linear mixed models adjusted for potential confounders, we found that hyperpolypharmacy was associated with a steeper antibody decline after 6 months from the first vaccine dose administration (ß = - 0.29, 95% confidence interval - 0.54, - 0.03, p = 0.03) than no polypharmacy, while no significant differences were observed at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of older residents showed only slight changes as a function of the number of medications taken. Although it seemed less durable among older residents with hyperpolypharmacy, the booster dose administration equalized such a difference.

Comparison between real-world practice and application of the FRAX algorithm in the treatment of osteoporosis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The most recent guidelines suggest treating patients whose FRAX 10-year fracture risk scores are ≥ 20%. However, this method of evaluation does not take into account parameters that are nonetheless relevant to the therapeutic choice. Our aim was to compare the therapeutic choices for treatment based on a wider assessment (real-world practice) with those based on FRAX scores, taking 20% as the cut-off score. METHODS: We obtained the medical history, bone mineral density (BMD) values, and the presence of major fragility fractures in a sample of 856 postmenopausal women. The 10-year FRAX risk of major osteoporotic fracture was calculated, and patients were grouped into risk classes ("FRAX < 20%" = low, "FRAX ≥ 20%" = high); we then compared the treated and untreated patients in each class. After an average interval of 2.5 years, changes in lumbar and femoral BMD and appearances of new fragility fractures were recorded. RESULTS: 83% of high-risk patients and 57% of low-risk patients were treated. The therapeutic decision was based mainly on densitometric values and the presence of vertebral fractures. At the 2.5 year follow-up, lumbar spine and femur BMD had decreased in the untreated group; 9.9% of the treated patients developed new vertebral fragility fractures, compared with 5.3% of the untreated patients. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Our wider assessment designated as at high fracture risk a group of patients who had not been identified by the FRAX assessment. FRAX could underestimate the risk of fracture in older people, for which the therapeutic choice should consider a broader approach, also based on individual patient's needs.

Increase in Frailty in Nursing Home Survivors of Coronavirus Disease 2019: Comparison With Noninfected Residents.

OBJECTIVES: Institutionalized older adults have a high prevalence of frailty and disability, which may make them more vulnerable to the negative consequences of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We investigated the impact of COVID-19 on the level of frailty, physical, and cognitive performance in nursing home residents. DESIGN: Nested case-control study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The study included nursing home residents who were infected with COVID-19 (case group, n = 76), matched by age to a control group (n = 76). METHODS: Participants' sociodemographic and medical data were collected, and they were also assessed for physical function (handgrip and walking speed), cognitive performance (Mini-Mental State Examination) and frailty (Frail-NH scale) before the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (October to December 2019, pre-COVID-19) and after (June to July 2020, post-COVID-19). COVID-19 symptoms and clinical course were recorded for the cases. RESULTS: Between the pre- and post-COVID-19 assessments, we found a 19% greater deterioration in handgrip, a 22% greater decrease in walking speed, and a 21% greater increase in Frail-NH scores in cases compared with controls. In both cases and controls, on the other hand, there was a significant 10% decrease in Mini-Mental State Examination scores over the study period. Multivariable logistic regression showed that COVID-19 survivors had a 4-fold increased chance of developing frailty compared with controls (odds ratio 4.95, 95% confidence interval 1.13-21.6, P = .03), but not cognitive decline. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: COVID-19 can accelerate the aging process of institutionalized older adults in terms of physical performance and frailty by around 20%. However, we found similar levels of decline in cognitive performance in both cases and controls, likely because of the burden of social isolation and containment measures on neuropsychological health.