Community-based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people, stratified by frailty: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background: Sustaining independence is important for older people, but there is insufficient guidance about which community health and care services to implement. Objectives: To synthesise evidence of the effectiveness of community services to sustain independence for older people grouped according to their intervention components, and to examine if frailty moderates the effect. Review design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Eligibility criteria: Studies: Randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised controlled trials. Participants: Older people (mean age 65+) living at home. Interventions: community-based complex interventions for sustaining independence. Comparators: usual care, placebo or another complex intervention. Main outcomes: Living at home, instrumental activities of daily living, personal activities of daily living, care-home placement and service/economic outcomes at 1 year. Data sources: We searched MEDLINE (1946-), Embase (1947-), CINAHL (1972-), PsycINFO (1806-), CENTRAL and trial registries from inception to August 2021, without restrictions, and scanned reference lists. Review methods: Interventions were coded, summarised and grouped. Study populations were classified by frailty. A random-effects network meta-analysis was used. We assessed trial-result risk of bias (Cochrane RoB 2), network meta-analysis inconsistency and certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation for network meta-analysis). Results: We included 129 studies (74,946 participants). Nineteen intervention components, including 'multifactorial-action' (multidomain assessment and management/individualised care planning), were identified in 63 combinations. The following results were of low certainty unless otherwise stated. For living at home, compared to no intervention/placebo, evidence favoured: multifactorial-action and review with medication-review (odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.59; moderate certainty) multifactorial-action with medication-review (odds ratio 2.55, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 10.60) cognitive training, medication-review, nutrition and exercise (odds ratio 1.93, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 4.77) and activities of daily living training, nutrition and exercise (odds ratio 1.79, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 4.76). Four intervention combinations may reduce living at home. For instrumental activities of daily living, evidence favoured multifactorial-action and review with medication-review (standardised mean difference 0.11, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.21; moderate certainty). Two interventions may reduce instrumental activities of daily living. For personal activities of daily living, evidence favoured exercise, multifactorial-action and review with medication-review and self-management (standardised mean difference 0.16, 95% confidence interval -0.51 to 0.82). For homecare recipients, evidence favoured the addition of multifactorial-action and review with medication-review (standardised mean difference 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.88). Care-home placement and service/economic findings were inconclusive. Limitations: High risk of bias in most results and imprecise estimates meant that most evidence was low or very low certainty. Few studies contributed to each comparison, impeding evaluation of inconsistency and frailty. Studies were diverse; findings may not apply to all contexts. Conclusions: Findings for the many intervention combinations evaluated were largely small and uncertain. However, the combinations most likely to sustain independence include multifactorial-action, medication-review and ongoing review of patients. Some combinations may reduce independence. Future work: Further research is required to explore mechanisms of action and interaction with context. Different methods for evidence synthesis may illuminate further. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019162195. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128862) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 48. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Due to a lack of robust evidence, the benefits and risks of most types of community services for older people are unclear. Individualised care planning, where medication is adjusted and there are regular follow-ups, probably helps people stay living at home. There are many kinds of community services for older people. For example, in some services, everyone is given exercise and dietary advice or an individualised care plan. These often aim to help older people age independently. Maintaining independence is important in later life. We wanted to find out which community services work best: to help people stay living at home, and to do day-to-day activities independently. We reviewed findings from previous studies that have tested different community services for older people. We combined these findings and compared different types of service with one another. We rated our confidence in the evidence. We found 129 studies with 74,946 people. We found 63 different kinds of service have been studied. The studies were carried out in diverse populations around the world. Individualised care planning, where medication is adjusted and there are regular follow-ups, may help people age independently. It probably increases the chance of staying at home slightly. It may also help with doing day-to-day activities very slightly. Exercise and dietary advice may also help people stay living at home. However, there was some evidence that some services may reduce independence. We do not know what effect most services have. We generally had little confidence in the evidence because studies were small, and information was missing. The evidence is up to date to August 2021.

Development of the Community-based complex Interventions to sustain Independence in Older People (CII-OP) typology: a qualitative synthesis of interventions in randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Community-based services to sustain independence for older people have varying configurations. A typology of these interventions would improve service provision and research by providing conceptual clarity and enabling the identification of effective configurations. We aimed to produce such a typology. METHOD: We developed our typology by qualitatively synthesising community-based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people, evaluated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), in four stages: (i) systematically identifying relevant RCTs; (ii) extracting descriptions of interventions (including control) using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication; (iii) generating categories of key intervention features and (iv) grouping the interventions based on these categories. PROSPERO registration: CRD42019162195. RESULTS: Our search identified 129 RCTs involving 266 intervention arms. The Community-based complex Interventions to sustain Independence in Older People (CII-OP) typology comprises 14 action components and 5 tailoring components. Action components include procedures for treating patients or otherwise intended to directly improve their outcomes; regular examples include formal homecare; physical exercise; health education; activities of daily living training; providing aids and adaptations and nutritional support. Tailoring components involve a process that may result in care planning, with multiple action components being planned, recommended or prescribed. Multifactorial action from care planning was the most common tailoring component. It involves individualised, multidomain assessment and management, as in comprehensive geriatric assessment. Sixty-three different intervention types (combinations) were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Our typology provides an empirical basis for service planning and evidence synthesis. We recommend better reporting about organisational aspects of interventions and usual care.

Community based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesise evidence of the effectiveness of community based complex interventions, grouped according to their intervention components, to sustain independence for older people. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 9 August 2021 and reference lists of included studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials or cluster randomised controlled trials with ≥24 weeks' follow-up studying community based complex interventions for sustaining independence in older people (mean age ≥65 years) living at home, with usual care, placebo, or another complex intervention as comparators. MAIN OUTCOMES: Living at home, activities of daily living (personal/instrumental), care home placement, and service/economic outcomes at 12 months. DATA SYNTHESIS: Interventions were grouped according to a specifically developed typology. Random effects network meta-analysis estimated comparative effects; Cochrane's revised tool (RoB 2) structured risk of bias assessment. Grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) network meta-analysis structured certainty assessment. RESULTS: The review included 129 studies (74 946 participants). Nineteen intervention components, including "multifactorial action from individualised care planning" (a process of multidomain assessment and management leading to tailored actions), were identified in 63 combinations. For living at home, compared with no intervention/placebo, evidence favoured multifactorial action from individualised care planning including medication review and regular follow-ups (routine review) (odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.59; moderate certainty); multifactorial action from individualised care planning including medication review without regular follow-ups (2.55, 0.61 to 10.60; low certainty); combined cognitive training, medication review, nutritional support, and exercise (1.93, 0.79 to 4.77; low certainty); and combined activities of daily living training, nutritional support, and exercise (1.79, 0.67 to 4.76; low certainty). Risk screening or the addition of education and self-management strategies to multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review may reduce odds of living at home. For instrumental activities of daily living, evidence favoured multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review (standardised mean difference 0.11, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.21; moderate certainty). Two interventions may reduce instrumental activities of daily living: combined activities of daily living training, aids, and exercise; and combined activities of daily living training, aids, education, exercise, and multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review and self-management strategies. For personal activities of daily living, evidence favoured combined exercise, multifactorial action from individualised care planning, and routine review with medication review and self-management strategies (0.16, -0.51 to 0.82; low certainty). For homecare recipients, evidence favoured addition of multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review (0.60, 0.32 to 0.88; low certainty). High risk of bias and imprecise estimates meant that most evidence was low or very low certainty. Few studies contributed to each comparison, impeding evaluation of inconsistency and frailty. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention most likely to sustain independence is individualised care planning including medicines optimisation and regular follow-up reviews resulting in multifactorial action. Homecare recipients may particularly benefit from this intervention. Unexpectedly, some combinations may reduce independence. Further research is needed to investigate which combinations of interventions work best for different participants and contexts. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019162195.

Community-based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people, stratified by frailty: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Maintaining independence is a primary goal of community health and care services for older people, but there is currently insufficient guidance about which services to implement. Therefore, we aim to synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of community-based complex interventions to sustain independence for older people, including the effect of frailty, and group interventions to identify the best configurations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs of community-based complex interventions to sustain independence for older people living at home (mean age ≥65 years), compared with usual care or another complex intervention. We will search MEDLINE (1946 to September 2020), Embase (1947 to September 2020), CINAHL (1981 to September 2020), PsycINFO (1806 to September 2020), CENTRAL and clinical trial registries from inception to September 2020, without date/language restrictions, and scan included papers' reference lists. Main outcomes were: living at home, activities of daily living (basic/instrumental), home-care services usage, hospitalisation, care home admission, costs and cost effectiveness. Additional outcomes were: health status, depression, loneliness, falls and mortality. Interventions will be coded, summarised and grouped. An NMA using a multivariate random-effects model for each outcome separately will determine the relative effects of different complex interventions. For each outcome, we will produce summary effect estimates for each pair of treatments in the network, with 95% CI, ranking plots and measures, and the borrowing of strength statistic. Inconsistency will be examined using a 'design-by-treatment interaction' model. We will assess risk of bias (Cochrane tool V.2) and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation for NMA approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This research will use aggregated, anonymised, published data. Findings will be reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance. They will be disseminated to policy-makers, commissioners and providers, and via conferences and scientific journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019162195.

Effect of remote ischaemic preconditioning on walking in people with multiple sclerosis: double-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) is the exposure of body parts to brief periods of circulatory occlusion and reperfusion. Recent studies have also shown that RIPC can improve exercise performance in healthy individuals. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the effect of RIPC on walking in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: This was a double-blind randomised controlled clinical trial. We used three cycles of RIPC delivered by occluding the upper arm with a blood pressure (BP) cuff inflated to a pressure of 30 mm Hg above the systolic BP. In patients in the sham intervention group, the BP cuff was inflated only to 30 mm Hg below diastolic BP. Outcome measures included the Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), gait speed, the Borg rate of perceived exertion (RPE) scale, the tolerability of the RIPC using a Numerical Rating Scale for discomfort from 0 to 10, and adverse events. We identified responders meeting the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) established in the literature in each group. RESULTS: Seventy-five participants completed the study (RIPC: 38 and Sham: 37). The distance walked during the 6MWT improved by 1.9% in the sham group and 5.7% in the RIPC group (p=0.012). The number of responders meeting MCID criteria in the RIPC group was significantly greater compared with the sham intervention group. No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: Single cycle of RIPC resulted in immediate improvement in walking distances during 6MWT in people with MS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03153553.