Multidisciplinary prehabilitation to improve frailty and functional capacity in high-risk elective surgical patients: a retrospective pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is associated with worse outcomes and higher healthcare costs. The long waiting time for surgery is a potential 'teachable' moment. We examined the feasibility and safety of a pilot prehabilitation programme on high-risk frail patients undergoing major elective surgery. METHODS: A single-centre, retrospective pilot study (Dec 2020-Nov 2021) on a one-stop prehabilitation programme (structured exercise training, nutritional counselling/therapy, and psychological support) in collaboration with geriatricians and allied health professionals. At least 4 weeks before surgery, patients at high risk of frailty or malnutrition, or undergoing major hepatectomy, esophagectomy, pancreaticoduodenectomy, or radical cystectomy, were referred for prehabilitation (2-3 sessions/week). The primary outcomes were the feasibility and safety of prehabilitation. The secondary outcomes were changes in functional, emotional, and nutritional status and days alive and at home within 30 days after surgery (DAH30) associated with prehabilitation. RESULTS: Over a 12-month period, 72 out of 111 patients (64.9%) from the Perioperative Medicine Clinic were eligible for prehabilitation, of which 54 (75%) were recruited. The mean (standard deviation) age was 71.9 (6.9) years. The adherence rate to 3 weeks of prehabilitation was high in 52 (96.3%) participants. Prehabilitation improved exercise capacity (P = 0.08), enhanced some functional mobility measures (P = 0.02), and increased nutritional energy (P = 0.04) and protein intakes (P < 0.01). However, prehabilitation-related changes in muscle strength, cognitive function, and emotional resilience were minimal. The median (interquatile range) DAH30 was 19 (14-23) days. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This outpatient-based, one-stop multidisciplinary prehabilitation programme was feasible, safe, and improved several measures of patient's physiological reserve and functional capacity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05668221.

Clinical Outcomes Following Treatment for COVID-19 With Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir and Molnupiravir Among Patients Living in Nursing Homes.

Importance: Older patients living in nursing homes are at very high risk of mortality after getting COVID-19. Objective: To evaluate outcomes following oral antiviral treatment for COVID-19 among nonhospitalized older patients living in nursing homes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a territory-wide, retrospective cohort study conducted between February 16 and March 31, 2022, with the last follow-up date on April 25, 2022. Participants were patients with COVID-19 living in nursing homes in Hong Kong. Data analysis was performed from May to June 2022. Exposures: Molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, or no oral antiviral treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was hospitalization for COVID-19, and the secondary outcome was risk of inpatient disease progression (ie, admission to intensive care unit, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, and/or death). Results: Of 14 617 patients (mean [SD] age, 84.8 [10.2] years; 8222 women [56.2%]), 8939 (61.2%) did not use oral antivirals, 5195 (35.5%) used molnupiravir, and 483 (3.3%) used nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Compared with patients who did not use oral antivirals, those who used molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were more likely to be female and less likely to have comorbid illnesses and hospitalization in the past year. At a median (IQR) follow-up of 30 (30-30) days, 6223 patients (42.6%) were hospitalized and 2307 patients (15.8%) experienced inpatient disease progression. After propensity score weighting, both molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization (molnupiravir, weighted hazard ratio [wHR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.37-0.57; P < .001; nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, wHR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.65; P < .001) and inpatient disease progression (molnupiravir, wHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.23-0.51; P < .001; nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, wHR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.06-0.44; P < .001). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was comparable to molnupiravir in achieving better clinical outcomes (hospitalization, wHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.75-1.33; P = .99; inpatient disease progression, wHR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.20-1.20; P = .12). Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort study, the use of oral antivirals to treat COVID-19 was associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization and inpatient disease progression among patients living in nursing homes. The findings of this study of nursing home residents could be reasonably extrapolated to other frail older patients living in the community.

Impact of the Use of Oral Antiviral Agents on the Risk of Hospitalization in Community Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients (COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: We examined the effectiveness of molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in reducing hospitalization and deaths in a real-world cohort of nonhospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: This was a territory-wide retrospective cohort study in Hong Kong. Nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients who attended designated outpatient clinics between 16 February and 31 March 2022 were identified. Patients hospitalized on the day of the first clinic appointment or used both oral antivirals were excluded. The primary endpoint was hospitalization. The secondary endpoint was a composite of intensive care unit admission, invasive mechanical ventilation use, and/or death. RESULTS: Of 93 883 patients, 83 154 (88.6%), 5808 (6.2%), and 4921 (5.2%) were oral antiviral nonusers, molnupiravir users, and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir users, respectively. Compared with nonusers, oral antiviral users were older and had more comorbidities, lower complete vaccination rate, and more hospitalizations in the previous year. Molnupiravir users were older and had more comorbidities, lower complete vaccination rate, and more hospitalizations in the previous year than nirmatrelvir/ritonavir users. At a median follow-up of 30 days, 1931 (2.1%) patients were hospitalized and 225 (0.2%) patients developed the secondary endpoint. After propensity score weighting, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use (weighted hazard ratio 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.95; P = .011) but not molnupiravir use (weighted hazard ratio 1.17; 95% CI, 0.99-1.39; P = .062) was associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization than nonusers. The use of molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was not associated with a lower risk of the secondary endpoint as compared with nonusers. CONCLUSION: Use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir but not molnupiravir was associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization in real-world nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Does additional weekend and holiday physiotherapy benefit geriatric patients with hip fracture? - A case-historical control study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the new service model of additional weekend and holiday physiotherapy (PT) by comparing functional outcomes and hospital length of stay between a group of geriatric patients with hip fracture receiving daily PT training and a group of geriatric patients with hip fracture receiving weekdays PT training. METHODS: A retrospective case-historical control chart review was conducted and a total of 355 patients were identified. Between-group comparisons were done on functional outcomes including Modified Functional Ambulation Classification (MFAC), Elderly Mobility Scale (EMS), Modified Barthel Index (MBI) and process outcome in terms of length of stay (LOS) in hospitals. RESULTS: With similar characteristics, patients who received weekend and holiday PT training had a significant higher percentage of MFAC Category III and a significant lower percentage of MFAC Category II ( p = 0 . 015 ) and significant higher MBI scores ( mean ± standard deviation, median; Study group: 47 . 4 ± 19 . 6 points, 51 points; Control group: 43 . 0 ± 20 . 0 points, 43 points; p = 0 . 042 ) upon admission to rehabilitation hospital. A similar trend in EMS scores (Study group: 8 . 2 ± 5 . 5 points, 7 points; Control group: 8 . 4 ± 6 . 1 points, 6 points; p = 0 . 998 ) and MBI scores (Study group: 63 . 0 ± 23 . 4 points, 68 points; Control group: 61 . 2 ± 26 . 1 points, 64 points; p = 0 . 743 ) were observed upon discharge from the rehabilitation hospital. The average LOS in acute hospitals remained static (Study group: 7 . 7 ± 3 . 9 days, 7 days; Control group: 7 . 4 ± 5 . 0 days, 6 days; p = 0 . 192 ). The average LOS in rehabilitation hospital (Study group: 20 . 0 ± 5 . 5 days, 20 days; Control group: 24 . 3 ± 9 . 9 days, 23 days; p < 0 . 001 ) and total in-patient LOS (Study group: 26 . 7 ± 6 . 4 days, 26 days; Control group: 30 . 7 ± 11 . 2 days, 28 days; p < 0 . 001 ) were significantly reduced. A higher percentage of days having PT training during hospitalization in rehabilitation hospital was shown with the implementation of new service (Study group: 89.1%; Control group: 65.9%, p < 0 . 001 ). CONCLUSION: Additional weekend and holiday PT training in post-operative acute and rehabilitation hospitalization benefits geriatric patients with hip fracture in terms of improved training efficiency, where hospital LOS was shortened with more PT sessions, without any significant impacts on functional outcome.