What Tools Can We Use to Screen for Fall Risk in Older Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment? Findings from the MEMENTO Cohort

ObjectivesIdentifying risk factors for falls can improve outcomes in older patients without cognitive decline. Yet this has not been demonstrated in older people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). We therefore sought to better identify risk factors for falls in this particular group.DesignThe analysis was conducted on the MEMENTO cohort, which is a large, French, prospective cohort.Setting and ParticipantsWe included older people (>65 years old) with MCI (defined from neuropsychological scores) and a Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score at baseline.MethodsFallers were defined as participants having fallen at least once during the study's 2-year follow-up period. We compared clinical, neuropsychological, and biological data at baseline in fallers vs nonfallers. Additional analyses were performed on the following subgroups: women, men, people aged ≥75 years.ResultsOf the 1416 people included in our study, 194 (13.5%) fell at least once. A bivariate analysis showed that fallers were older, predominantly women, less independent in activities of daily living, and more apathetic. Fallers performed less well in executive function, balance, and gait tests. In a multivariable analysis, only age, gender, the number of limitations in instrumental activities of daily living, and living alone were significantly associated with falls. In a multivariable analysis of the subgroup of oldest patients and of the subgroup of men, executive function was significantly worse in fallers than in nonfallers.Conclusion and ImplicationsOur results demonstrate that easily attainable risk factors can be used to identify individuals with MCI with a higher risk of falls and for whom prevention could be beneficial. Future studies are needed to further evaluate the role of mild executive dysfunction in certain subgroups, such as men and oldest patients.     

Effect of BMI on safety of bariatric surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic,procedure choice,and safety protocols – An analysis from the GENEVA Study

BackgroundIt has been suggested that patients with a Body Mass Index (BMI) of > 60 kg/m² should be offered expedited Bariatric Surgery (BS) during the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The main objective of this study was to assess the safety of this approach.MethodsWe conducted a global study of patients who underwent BS between 1/05/2020 and 31/10/2020. Patients were divided into three groups according to their preoperative BMI - Group I (BMI<50 kg/m²), Group II (BMI 50–60 kg/m²), and Group III (BMI>60 kg/m²). The effect of preoperative BMI on 30-day morbidity and mortality, procedure choice, COVID-19 specific safety protocols, and comorbidities was assessed.ResultsThis study included 7084 patients (5197;73.4 % females). The mean preoperative weight and BMI were 119.49 ± 24.4 Kgs and 43.03 ± 6.9 Kg/m^2, respectively. Group I included 6024 (85 %) patients, whereas Groups II and III included 905 (13 %) and 155 (2 %) patients, respectively.The 30-day mortality rate was higher in Group III (p = 0.001). The complication rate and COVID-19 infection were not different. Comorbidities were significantly more likely in Group III (p = <0.001). A significantly higher proportion of patients in group III received Sleeve Gastrectomy or One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass compared to other groups. Patients with a BMI of > 70 kg/m² had a 30-day mortality of 7.7 % (2/26). None of these patients underwent a Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass.ConclusionThe 30-day mortality rate was significantly higher in patients with BMI > 60 kg/m². There was, however, no significant difference in complications rates in different BMI groups, probably due to differences in procedure selection.     

Vitamin D Serum Levels in Subjects Tested for SARS-CoV-2: What Are the Differences among Acute,Healed, and Negative COVID-19 Patients? A Multicenter Real-Practice Study

Vitamin D might play a role in counteracting COVID-19, albeit strong evidence is still lacking in the literature. The present multicenter real-practice study aimed to evaluate the differences of 25(OH)D₃ serum levels in adults tested for SARS-CoV-2 (acute COVID-19 patients, subjects healed from COVID-19, and non-infected ones) recruited over a 6-month period (March–September 2021). In a sample of 117 subjects, a statistically significant difference was found, with acute COVID-19 patients demonstrating the lowest levels of serum 25(OH)D₃ (9.63 ± 8.70 ng/mL), significantly lower than values reported by no-COVID-19 patients (15.96 ± 5.99 ng/mL, p = 0.0091) and healed COVID-19 patients (11.52 ± 4.90 ng/mL, p > 0.05). Male gender across the three groups displayed unfluctuating 25(OH)D₃ levels, hinting at an inability to ensure adequate levels of the active vitamin D3 form (1α,25(OH)2D3). As a secondary endpoint, we assessed the correlation between serum 25(OH)D₃ levels and pro-inflammatory cytokine interleukin-6 (IL-6) in patients with extremely low serum 25(OH)D₃ levels (<1 ng/mL) and in a subset supplemented with 1α,25(OH)₂D₃. Although patients with severe hypovitaminosis-D showed no significant increase in IL-6 levels, acute COVID-19 patients manifested high circulating IL-6 at admission (females = 127.64 ± 22.24 pg/mL, males = 139.28 ± 48.95 ng/mL) which dropped drastically after the administration of 1α,25(OH)₂D₃ (1.84 ± 0.77 pg/mL and 2.65 ± 0.92 ng/mL, respectively). Taken together, these findings suggest that an administration of 1α,25(OH)₂D₃ might be helpful for treating male patients with an acute COVID-19 infection. Further studies on rapid correction of vitamin D deficiency with fast acting metabolites are warranted in COVID-19 patients.