Antihypertensive deprescribing in frail long-term care residents (OptimizeBP): protocol for a prospective, randomised, open-label pragmatic trial.

INTRODUCTION: Although antihypertensive medication use is common among frail older adults, observational studies in this population suggest blood pressure (BP) lowering may convey limited benefit and perhaps even harm. This protocol describes an antihypertensive deprescribing trial in frail older adults powered for mortality and morbidity outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Design: Prospective, parallel, randomised, open-label pragmatic trial.Participants: Long-term care (LTC) residents ≥70 years of age, diagnosed with hypertension, with mean systolic BP <135 mm Hg, ≥1 daily antihypertensive medication and no history of congestive heart failure.Setting: 18 LTC facilities in Alberta, Canada, with eligible residents identified using electronic health services data.Intervention: All non-opted-out eligible residents are randomised centrally by a provincial health data steward to either usual care, or continually reducing antihypertensives provided an upper systolic threshold of 145 mm Hg is not exceeded. Deprescribing is carried out by pharmacists/nurse practitioners, using an investigator-developed algorithm.Follow-up: Provincial healthcare databases tracking hospital, continuing care and community medical services.Primary outcome: All-cause mortality.Secondary outcome: Composite of all-cause mortality or all-cause unplanned hospitalisation/emergency department visit.Tertiary outcomes: All-cause unplanned hospitalisation/emergency department visit, non-vertebral fracture, renal insufficiency and cost of care. Also, as assessed roughly 135-days postrandomisation, fall in the last 30 days, worsening cognition, worsening activities of daily living and skin ulceration.Process outcomes: Number of daily antihypertensive medications (broken down by antihypertensive class) and average systolic and diastolic BP over study duration.Primary outcome analysis: Cox proportional hazards survival analysis.Sample size: The trial will continue until observation of 247 primary outcome events has occurred.Current status: Enrolment is ongoing with ~400 randomisations to date (70% female, mean age 86 years). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Alberta Health Ethics Review Board (Pro00097312) and results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05047731.

Physicians and Family Caregivers: Two Perspectives of Physicians' Roles in Long-Term Care.

OBJECTIVES: We explored the roles of attending physicians of long-term care (LTC) residents in supporting their family caregivers (FCGs). DESIGN: In this mixed-methods study, we conducted surveys and focus group interviews with physicians and FCGs. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: There were 78 FCGs and 18 physicians in the survey, and 18 FCGs and 9 physicians in the focus groups. They were recruited from 5 urban LTC settings. RESULTS: Although 83.3% of physicians reported they had experience caring for FCGs, 71.8% of FCGs perceived they had not received support from the physicians. There was no statistically significant difference between the FCGs' and physicians' mean responses to the mirrored survey questions. Both groups gave similar ratings, means neutral and agree indicative of ambivalence, on physician's knowledge to identify FCGs who need assistance, ability to assess FCG stress, and aid those experiencing distress and needing advocacy. Analysis of the focus groups revealed the overarching theme: ambiguity about the LTC residents' physicians' role in supporting FCGs. Although physicians noted that residents and families come as a unit, there was ambivalence about the physician's role in supporting FCGs. FCG roles in LTC are also vague. There were 3 sub-themes: "accord on the surface"; "tension in the interface"; and "smoothing the relationship." Both groups thought FCG medical care was beyond the purview of the resident's physician. Physicians and FCGs provided different explanations for the tensions in the FCG/physician interface. Physicians attributed tension to FCG stress and inadequate knowledge, whereas FCGs thought physicians' communication could be improved. Suggestions to smooth the relationship were to align FCG expectations to reality of LTC and different staffing models. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Family physicians, policy makers, and FCGs will need to work on polices to ensure LTC physicians' roles in supporting FCGs and FCGs' roles in LTC are delineated and supported.

Early warning and rapid public health response to prevent COVID-19 outbreaks in long-term care facilities (LTCF) by monitoring SARS-CoV-2 RNA in LTCF site-specific sewage samples and assessment of antibodies response in this population: prospective study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has an excessive impact on residents in long-term care facilities (LTCF), causing high morbidity and mortality. Early detection of presymptomatic and asymptomatic COVID-19 cases supports the timely implementation of effective outbreak control measures but repetitive screening of residents and staff incurs costs and discomfort. Administration of vaccines is key to controlling the pandemic but the robustness and longevity of the antibody response, correlation of neutralising antibodies with commercial antibody assays, and the efficacy of current vaccines for emerging COVID-19 variants require further study. We propose to monitor SARS-CoV-2 in site-specific sewage as an early warning system for COVID-19 in LTCF and to study the immune response of the staff and residents in LTCF to COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study includes two parts: (1) detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 in LTCF site-specific sewage samples using a molecular assay followed by notification of Public Health within 24 hours as an early warning system for appropriate outbreak investigation and control measures and cost-benefit analyses of the system and (2) testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among staff and residents in LTCF at various time points before and after COVID-19 vaccination using commercial assays and neutralising antibody testing performed at a reference laboratory. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Alberta Health Research Ethics Board with considerations to minimise risk and discomforts for the participants. Early recognition of a COVID-19 case in an LTCF might prevent further transmission in residents and staff. There was no direct benefit identified to the participants of the immunity study. Anticipated dissemination of information includes a summary report to the immunity study participants, sharing of study data with the scientific community through the Canadian COVID-19 Immunity Task Force, and prompt dissemination of study results in meeting abstracts and manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals.