Introduction Increased mortality has been demonstrated in older adults with COVID-19, but the effect of frailty has been unclear. Methods This multi-centre cohort study involved patients aged 18 years and older hospitalised with COVID-19, using routinely collected data. We used Cox regression analysis to assess the impact of age, frailty, and delirium on the risk of inpatient mortality, adjusting for sex, illness severity, inflammation, and co-morbidities. We used ordinal logistic regression analysis to assess the impact of age, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), and delirium on risk of increased care requirements on discharge, adjusting for the same variables. Results Data from 5,711 patients from 55 hospitals in 12 countries were included (median age 74, IQR 54–83; 55.2% male). The risk of death increased independently with increasing age (>80 vs 18–49: HR 3.57, CI 2.54–5.02), frailty (CFS 8 vs 1–3: HR 3.03, CI 2.29–4.00) inflammation, renal disease, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, but not delirium. Age, frailty (CFS 7 vs 1–3: OR 7.00, CI 5.27–9.32), delirium, dementia, and mental health diagnoses were all associated with increased risk of higher care needs on discharge. The likelihood of adverse outcomes increased across all grades of CFS from 4 to 9. Conclusions Age and frailty are independently associated with adverse outcomes in COVID-19. Risk of increased care needs was also increased in survivors of COVID-19 with frailty or older age.

Background Older people living with frailty are often exposed to polypharmacy and potential harm from medications. Targeted deprescribing in this population represents an important component of optimizing medication. This systematic review aims to summarise the current evidence for deprescribing among older people living with frailty. Methods The literature was searched using Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library up to May 2020. Interventional studies with any design or setting were included if they reported deprescribing interventions among people aged 65+ who live with frailty identified using reliable measures. The primary outcome was safety of deprescribing; whereas secondary outcomes included clinical outcomes, medication-related outcomes, feasibility, acceptability and cost-related outcomes. Narrative synthesis was used to summarise findings and study quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute checklists. Results Two thousand three hundred twenty-two articles were identified and six (two randomised controlled trials) were included with 657 participants in total (mean age range 79–87 years). Studies were heterogeneous in their designs, settings and outcomes. Deprescribing interventions were pharmacist-led (n = 3) or multidisciplinary team-led (n = 3). Frailty was identified using several measures and deprescribing was implemented using either explicit or implicit tools or both. Three studies reported safety outcomes and showed no significant changes in adverse events, hospitalisation or mortality rates. Three studies reported positive impact on clinical outcomes including depression, mental health status, function and frailty; with mixed findings on falls and cognition; and no significant impact on quality of life. All studies described medication-related outcomes and reported a reduction in potentially inappropriate medications and total number of medications per-patient. Feasibility of deprescribing was reported in four studies which showed that 72–91% of recommendations made were implemented. Two studies evaluated and reported the acceptability of their interventions and further two described cost saving. Conclusion There is a paucity of research about the impact of deprescribing in older people living with frailty. However, included studies suggest that deprescribing could be safe, feasible, well tolerated and can lead to important benefits. Research should now focus on understanding the impact of deprescribing on frailty status in high risk populations. Trial registration The review was registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) ID number: CRD42019153367.

Background Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) involves the multidimensional assessment and management of an older person. It is well described in hospital and home-based settings. A novel approach could be to perform CGA within primary healthcare, the initial community located healthcare setting for patients, improving accessibility to a co-located multidisciplinary team. Aim To appraise the evidence on CGA implemented within the primary care practice. Methods The review followed PRISMA recommendations. Eligible studies reported CGA on persons aged ≥ 65 in a primary care practice. Studies focusing on a single condition were excluded. Searches were run in five databases; reference lists and publications were screened. Two researchers independently screened for eligibility and assessed study quality. All study outcomes were reviewed. Results The authors screened 9003 titles, 145 abstracts and 97 full texts. Four studies were included. Limited study bias was observed. Studies were heterogeneous in design and reported outcomes. CGAs were led by a geriatrician (n = 3) or nurse practitioner (n = 1), with varied length and extent of follow-up (12-48 months). Post-intervention hospital admission rates showed mixed results, with improved adherence to medication modifications. No improvement in survival or functional outcomes was observed. Interventions were widely accepted and potentially cost-effective. Discussion The four studies demonstrated that CGA was acceptable and provided variable outcome benefit. Further research is needed to identify the most effective strategy for implementing CGA in primary care. Particular questions include identification of patients suitable for CGA within primary care CGA, a consensus list of outcome measures, and the role of different healthcare professionals in delivering CGA.