Patient preferences using telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic in four Victorian tertiary hospital services.

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a major impact on healthcare services with many changes to telehealth care delivery. More information is needed about the patient perspective of telehealth in hospital services and the potential costs and benefits for patients. AIM: To measure patients' evaluation of telehealth, preferences for telehealth versus in-person appointments, and potential cost savings by patient characteristics. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey (including patient and appointment characteristics, telehealth evaluation, preferences for care and costs) of adult patients using video telehealth in four metropolitan tertiary hospital services in Melbourne, Victoria. RESULTS: A total of 1045 patients (median age 44 years; interquartile range 29-59) participated with an overall response rate of 9.2%. For 98.7% patients, telehealth was convenient, 96.4% stated that it saved time, 95.9% found telehealth acceptable to receive care and 97.0% found that telehealth improved their access to care. Most (62.6%) preferred in-person consultations, although 86.9% agreed that telehealth was equivalent to an in-person consultation. Those in regional and rural areas were less likely to prefer in-person consultations. Patients attending for medical reasons were less likely to prefer in-person consultation compared with patients with surgical reasons. Patient preference to telehealth was independent of level of education, appointment type, self-rated health status and socio economic status. Patients saved an average of A$120.9 (standard deviation A$93.0) per appointment, with greater cost savings for patients from low and middle socio economic areas and regional or rural areas. CONCLUSION: Telehealth video consultations were largely evaluated positively with most patients considering the service to be as good as in-person. Understanding patient preference is critical to consider when implementing telehealth as mainstream across hospital health services.

Targeting impaired nutrient sensing with repurposed therapeutics to prevent or treat age-related cognitive decline and dementia: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is a debilitating syndrome that significantly impacts individuals over the age of 65 years. There are currently no disease-modifying treatments for dementia. Impairment of nutrient sensing pathways has been implicated in the pathogenesis of dementia, and may offer a novel treatment approach for dementia. AIMS: This systematic review collates all available evidence for Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved therapeutics that modify nutrient sensing in the context of preventing cognitive decline or improving cognition in ageing, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and dementia populations. METHODS: PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases were searched using key search terms focusing on available therapeutics such as 'metformin', 'GLP1', 'insulin' and the dementias including 'Alzheimer's disease' and 'Parkinson's disease'. Articles were screened using Covidence systematic review software (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool v 2.0 for human studies and SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies. RESULTS: Out of 2619 articles, 114 were included describing 31 different 'modulation of nutrient sensing pathway' therapeutics, 13 of which specifically were utilized in human interventional trials for normal ageing or dementia. Growth hormone secretagogues improved cognitive outcomes in human mild cognitive impairment, and potentially normal ageing populations. In animals, all investigated therapeutic classes exhibited some cognitive benefits in dementia models. While the risk of bias was relatively low in human studies, this risk in animal studies was largely unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Modulation of nutrient sensing pathway therapeutics, particularly growth hormone secretagogues, have the potential to improve cognitive outcomes. Overall, there is a clear lack of translation from animal models to human populations.

The conundrum of human immune system "senescence".

There is a great deal of debate on the question of whether or not we know what ageing is (Ref. Cohen et al., 2020). Here, we consider what we believe to be the especially confused and confusing case of the ageing of the human immune system, commonly referred to as "immunosenescence". But what exactly is meant by this term? It has been used loosely in the literature, resulting in a certain degree of confusion as to its definition and implications. Here, we argue that only those differences in immune parameters between younger and older adults that are associated in some definitive manner with detrimental health outcomes and/or impaired survival prospects should be classed as indicators of immunosenescence in the strictest sense of the word, and that in humans we know remarkably little about their identity. Such biomarkers of immunosenescence may nonetheless indicate beneficial effects in other contexts, consistent with the notion of antagonistic pleiotropy. Identifying what could be true immunosenescence in this respect requires examining: (1) what appears to correlate with age, though generality across human populations is not yet confirmed; (2) what clearly is part of a suite of canonical changes in the immune system that happen with age; (3) which subset of those changes accelerates rather than slows aging; and (4) all changes, potentially population-specific, that accelerate agig. This remains an immense challenge. These questions acquire an added urgency in the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, given the clearly greater susceptibility of older adults to COVID-19.