Protein supplementation combined with low-intensity resistance training in geriatric medical patients during and after hospitalisation: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre trial.

Sarcopenia (loss of muscle mass/strength) burdens many older adults - hospitalised older adults being particularly vulnerable. Treating the condition, protein supplementation (PrS) and resistance training (RT) may act synergistically. Therefore, this block-randomised, double-blind, multicentre intervention study, recruiting geriatric patients > 70 years from three medical departments, investigated the effect of PrS combined with RT during hospitalisation and 12 weeks after discharge. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive PrS (totally 27·5 g whey protein/d, about 2000 kJ/d) or isoenergetic placebo-products (< 1·5 g protein/d) divided into two servings per d to supplement the habitual diet. Both groups were engaged in a standardised, progressive low-intensity RT programme for the lower extremities (hospital: supervised daily/after discharge: self-training 4×/week). From April 2016 to September 2017, 2351 patients were screened, 462 were eligible, and 165 included. Fourteen were excluded and ten dropped out, leaving 141 participants in the intention-to-treat analysis. The average total protein intake during hospitalisation/after discharge was 1·0 (interquartile range (IQR) 0·8, 1·3)/1·1 (IQR 0·9, 1·3) g/kg per d (protein-group) and 0·6 (IQR 0·5, 0·8)/0·9 (IQR 0·6, 1·0) g/kg per d (placebo group). Both groups improved significantly for the primary and secondary endpoints of muscle mass/strength, functional measurements and quality of life, but no additional effect of PrS was seen for the primary endpoint (30-s chair stand test, repetitions, median changes from baseline: (standard test: 0 (IQR 0, 5) (protein group) v. 2 (IQR 0, 6) (placebo group) and modified test: 2 (IQR 0, 5) (protein group) v. 2 (IQR -1, 5) (placebo group)) or any secondary endpoints (Mann-Whitney U tests, P > 0·05). In conclusion, PrS increasing the total protein intake by 0·4 and 0·2 g/kg per d during hospitalisation and after discharge, respectively, does not seem to increase the adaptive response to low-intensity RT in geriatric medical patients.

Baseline and follow-up characteristics of participants and nonparticipants in a randomized clinical trial of multifactorial fall prevention in Denmark.

OBJECTIVES: To address the external validity of a trial of multifactorial fall prevention through an analysis of differences between participants and nonparticipants regarding socioeconomic and morbidity variables. DESIGN: Analysis of nonresponse in a randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Geriatric outpatient department. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand one hundred five community-dwelling adults aged 65 and older who had sustained at least one injurious fall. MEASUREMENTS: Marital status, housing tenure, income, comorbidity, hospitalization, fractures, and drug use before invitation to participate in the trial. Fractures, hospitalization and death were measured for 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Four hundred forty-seven responding nonparticipants and 266 nonresponding nonparticipants were compared with 392 participants in the trial. Lower income (odds ratio (OR)=2.38, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.28-4.28) and more days of hospitalization during the previous 5 years (OR=1.96, 95% CI=1.15-3.33) predicted responding nonparticipation; independent predictors of being a nonresponding nonparticipant were unmarried status (OR=2.0, 95% CI=1.36-2.94), lower income (OR=4.74, 95% CI=2.30-9.78), more days of hospitalization (OR=3.49, 95% CI=1.99-6.11), and prior fractures (OR=1.56, 95% CI=1.02-2.38). Nonresponding nonparticipants were significantly more likely to die (OR=12.99, 95% CI=1.6-105.6) or be hospitalized (OR=2.66, 95% CI=1.7-4.1) than participants during 6 months of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Nonresponding nonparticipants of a trial of multifactorial fall prevention differed significantly from participants in terms of socioeconomic and morbidity variables and were more likely to be hospitalized or die during 6 months of follow-up. Because of the differences between the two populations, it is questionable whether results from this randomized trial can be generalized to people potentially eligible for participation.

An outpatient multifactorial falls prevention intervention does not reduce falls in high-risk elderly Danes.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of multifactorial fall prevention in community-dwelling people aged 65 and older in Denmark. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Geriatric outpatient clinic at Glostrup University Hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred ninety-two elderly people, mean age 74, 73.7%women, who had visited the emergency department or had been hospitalized due to a fall. INTERVENTION: Identification of general medical, cardiovascular, and physical risk factors for falls and individual intervention in the intervention group. Participants in the control group received usual care. MEASUREMENTS: Falls were registered prospectively in falls diaries, with monthly telephone calls for collection of data. Outcomes were fall rates and proportion of participants with falls, frequent falls, and injurious falls in 12 months. RESULTS: Groups were comparable at baseline. Followup exceeded 90.0%. A total of 422 falls were registered in the intervention group, 398 in the control group. Intention-to-treat analysis revealed no effect of the intervention on fall rates (relative risk=1.06, 95%confidence interval (CI)=0.75 -1.51), proportion with falls (odds ratio (OR)=1.20, 95% CI 0.81-1.79), frequent falls (OR=0.97, 95% CI=0.60-1.56), or injurious falls (OR=0.97, 95% CI=0.57-1.62). CONCLUSION: A program of multifactorial fall prevention aimed at elderly Danish people experiencing at least one injurious fall was not effective in preventing further falls.