Viral respiratory tract infections (VRTI) are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in haematology patients, particularly after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). The incidence, clinical presentation and outcome of symptomatic and asymptomatic VRTI in HSCT outpatient unit were prospectively evaluated during a single influenza season (January-March 2011). Pharyngeal swabs were performed at the first visit and if new symptoms were present. Molecular multiplex assay for 12 respiratory viruses was performed by the regional reference laboratory. Among 264 swabs from 193 outpatients, 58 (22 %) resulted positive for 61 viruses (influenza, n = 20; respiratory syncytial virus [RSV], n = 21; rhinovirus, n = 12; coronavirus, n = 4; adenovirus, n = 3; parainfluenza, n = 1). VRTI were detected more frequently in the presence of symptoms than in asymptomatic patients: 49 out of 162 (30 %) vs. 9 out of 102 (9 %), p < 0.001. Influenza-like illness syndrome (ILI) was significantly associated with a VRTI if compared to other presentations (42 %), while the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control definition was not (30 %). Positive predictive value (PPV) of ILI for influenza was 17 %. Influenza and RSV peak periods were contemporary. Influenza prophylaxis was given to 25 patients following exposure. Low rate of progression from upper to lower respiratory tract infection (approximately 5 % for influenza and RSV), no nosocomial epidemics and no VRTI-related deaths were observed. VRTI are very frequent in high-risk haematology outpatients, but symptoms are aspecific and PPV of ILI is low. Symptoms of influenza and RSV overlap. Thus, microbiological diagnosis and contact preventive measures are crucial. Rather than universal influenza prophylaxis, prompt diagnosis and treatment of only documented infections could be pursued.

Background The topic of prognosis in COVID-19 research may be important in adopting appropriate clinical decisions. Multidimensional prognostic index (MPI) is a frailty assessment tool widely used for stratifying prognosis in older people, but data regarding inpatients, affected by COVID-19, are not available. Objectives To evaluate whether MPI can predict in-hospital mortality and the admission to intensive care unit (ICU) in older inpatients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection. Methods In this longitudinal, Italian, multi-center study, older patients with COVID-19 were included. MPI was calculated using eight different domains typical of comprehensive geriatric assessment and categorized in three groups (MPI 1 ≤ 0.33, MPI 2 0.34–0.66, MPI 3 > 0.66). A multivariable Cox's regression analysis was used reporting the results as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results 227 older patients hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled (mean age: 80.5 years, 59% females). Inpatients in the MPI 3 were subjected less frequently than those in the MPI 1 to non-invasive ventilation (NIV). In the multivariable analysis, people in MPI 3 experienced a higher risk of in hospital mortality (HR = 6.30, 95%CI: 1.44–27.61), compared to MPI 1. The accuracy of MPI in predicting in hospital mortality was good (Area Under the Curve (AUC) = 0.76, 95%CI: 0.68–0.83). People in MPI 3 experienced a significant longer length of stay (LOS) in hospital compared to other participants. No association between MPI and ICU admission was found. Conclusions Frailty- as assessed by high MPI score - was associated with a significant higher risk of in-hospital mortality, longer LOS, and lower use NIV, whilst the association with ICU admission was not significant. These findings suggest that prognostic stratification by using the MPI could be useful in clinical decision making in older inpatients affected by COVID-19.

Background Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) has been in use for the last three decades. However, some doubts remain regarding its clinical use. Therefore, we aimed to capture the breadth of outcomes reported and assess the strength of evidence of the use of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) for health outcomes in older persons. Methods Umbrella review of systematic reviews of the use of CGA in older adults searching in Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane library and CINHAL until 05 November 2021. All possible health outcomes were eligible. Two independent reviewers extracted key data. The grading of evidence was carried out using the GRADE for intervention studies, whilst data regarding systematic reviews were reported as narrative findings. Results Among 1,683 papers, 31 systematic reviews (19 with meta-analysis) were considered, including 279,744 subjects. Overall, 13/53 outcomes were statistically significant (P &lt; 0.05). There was high certainty of evidence that CGA reduces nursing home admission (risk ratio [RR] = 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75–0.89), risk of falls (RR = 0.51; 95%CI: 0.29–0.89), and pressure sores (RR = 0.46; 95%CI: 0.24–0.89) in hospital medical setting; decreases the risk of delirium (OR = 0.71; 95%CI: 0.54–0.92) in hip fracture; decreases the risk of physical frailty in community-dwelling older adults (RR = 0.77; 95%CI: 0.64–0.93). Systematic reviews without meta-analysis indicate that CGA improves clinical outcomes in oncology, haematology, and in emergency department. Conclusions CGA seems to be beneficial in the hospital medical setting for multiple health outcomes, with a high certainty of evidence. The evidence of benefits is less strong for the use of CGA in other settings.

No abstract