Association Between Chronologic Age and Geriatric Assessment-Identified Impairments: Findings From the CARE Registry.

BACKGROUND: The NCCN Guidelines for Older Adult Oncology recommend that, when possible, older adults with cancer undergo a geriatric assessment (GA) to provide a comprehensive health appraisal to guide interventions and appropriate treatment selection. However, the association of age with GA-identified impairments (GA impairments) remains understudied and the appropriate age cutoff for using the GA remains unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We designed a cross-sectional study using the Cancer and Aging Resilience Evaluation (CARE) registry of older adults with cancer. We included adults aged ≥60 years diagnosed with gastrointestinal malignancy who underwent a patient-reported GA prior to their initial consultation at the gastrointestinal oncology clinic. We noted the presence of GA impairments and frailty using Rockwood's deficit accumulation approach. We studied the relation between chronologic age and GA impairments/frailty using Spearman rank correlation and chi-square tests of trend. RESULTS: We identified 455 eligible older adults aged ≥60 years with gastrointestinal malignancies; the median age was 68 years (range, 64-74 years) and colorectal (33%) and pancreatic (24%) cancers were the most common cancer type. The correlation between chronologic age and number of geriatric impairments was weak and did not reach statistical significance (Spearman ρ, 0.07; P=.16). Furthermore, the prevalence of domain-specific impairments or frailty was comparable across the 3 age groups (60-64 years, 65-74 years, ≥75 years) with the exception of comorbidity burden. Notably, 61% of patients aged 60 to 64 years had ≥2 GA impairments and 35% had evidence of frailty, which was comparable to patients aged 65 to 74 years (66% and 36%, respectively) and ≥75 years (70% and 40%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Using chronologic age alone to identify which patients may benefit from GA is problematic. Future studies should identify screening tools that may identify patients at high risk of frailty and GA impairments.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy compared with maintenance antidepressant treatment in the prevention of depressive relapse or recurrence (PREVENT): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with a history of recurrent depression have a high risk of repeated depressive relapse or recurrence. Maintenance antidepressants for at least 2 years is the current recommended treatment, but many individuals are interested in alternatives to medication. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) has been shown to reduce risk of relapse or recurrence compared with usual care, but has not yet been compared with maintenance antidepressant treatment in a definitive trial. We aimed to see whether MBCT with support to taper or discontinue antidepressant treatment (MBCT-TS) was superior to maintenance antidepressants for prevention of depressive relapse or recurrence over 24 months. METHODS: In this single-blind, parallel, group randomised controlled trial (PREVENT), we recruited adult patients with three or more previous major depressive episodes and on a therapeutic dose of maintenance antidepressants, from primary care general practices in urban and rural settings in the UK. Participants were randomly assigned to either MBCT-TS or maintenance antidepressants (in a 1:1 ratio) with a computer-generated random number sequence with stratification by centre and symptomatic status. Participants were aware of treatment allocation and research assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was time to relapse or recurrence of depression, with patients followed up at five separate intervals during the 24-month study period. The primary analysis was based on the principle of intention to treat. The trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN26666654. FINDINGS: Between March 23, 2010, and Oct 21, 2011, we assessed 2188 participants for eligibility and recruited 424 patients from 95 general practices. 212 patients were randomly assigned to MBCT-TS and 212 to maintenance antidepressants. The time to relapse or recurrence of depression did not differ between MBCT-TS and maintenance antidepressants over 24 months (hazard ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·67-1·18; p=0·43), nor did the number of serious adverse events. Five adverse events were reported, including two deaths, in each of the MBCT-TS and maintenance antidepressants groups. No adverse events were attributable to the interventions or the trial. INTERPRETATION: We found no evidence that MBCT-TS is superior to maintenance antidepressant treatment for the prevention of depressive relapse in individuals at risk for depressive relapse or recurrence. Both treatments were associated with enduring positive outcomes in terms of relapse or recurrence, residual depressive symptoms, and quality of life. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme, and NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula.