Strong, steady and straight: UK consensus statement on physical activity and exercise for osteoporosis.

Exercise and physical activity can improve bone strength and the risk of falls, which may offer benefits in the prevention and management of osteoporosis. However, uncertainty about the types of exercise that are safe and effective instigates lack of confidence in people with osteoporosis and health professionals. Existing guidelines leave some questions unresolved. This consensus statement aimed to determine the physical activity and exercise needed to optimise bone strength, reduce fall and fracture risk, improve posture and manage vertebral fracture symptoms, while minimising potential risks in people with osteoporosis. The scope of this statement was developed following stakeholder consultation. Meta-analyses were reviewed and where evidence was lacking, individual studies or expert opinion were used to develop recommendations. A multidisciplinary expert group reviewed evidence to make recommendations, by consensus when evidence was not available. Key recommendations are that people with osteoporosis should undertake (1) resistance and impact exercise to maximise bone strength; (2) activities to improve strength and balance to reduce falls; (3) spinal extension exercise to improve posture and potentially reduce risk of falls and vertebral fractures. For safety, we recommend avoiding postures involving a high degree of spinal flexion during exercise or daily life. People with vertebral fracture or multiple low trauma fractures should usually exercise only up to an impact equivalent to brisk walking. Those at risk of falls should start with targeted strength and balance training. Vertebral fracture symptoms may benefit from exercise to reduce pain, improve mobility and quality of life, ideally with specialist advice to encourage return to normal activities. Everyone with osteoporosis may benefit from guidance on adapting postures and movements. There is little evidence that physical activity is associated with significant harm, and the benefits, in general, outweigh the risks.

Resistance exercise as a treatment for sarcopenia: prescription and delivery.

Sarcopenia is a generalised skeletal muscle disorder characterised by reduced muscle strength and mass and associated with a range of negative health outcomes. Currently, resistance exercise (RE) is recommended as the first-line treatment for counteracting the deleterious consequences of sarcopenia in older adults. However, whilst there is considerable evidence demonstrating that RE is an effective intervention for improving muscle strength and function in healthy older adults, much less is known about its benefits in older people living with sarcopenia. Furthermore, evidence for its optimal prescription and delivery is very limited and any potential benefits of RE are unlikely to be realised in the absence of an appropriate exercise dose. We provide a summary of the underlying principles of effective RE prescription (specificity, overload and progression) and discuss the main variables (training frequency, exercise selection, exercise intensity, exercise volume and rest periods) that can be manipulated when designing RE programmes. Following this, we propose that an RE programme that consists of two exercise sessions per week and involves a combination of upper- and lower-body exercises performed with a relatively high degree of effort for 1-3 sets of 6-12 repetitions is appropriate as a treatment for sarcopenia. The principles of RE prescription outlined here and the proposed RE programme presented in this paper provide a useful resource for clinicians and exercise practitioners treating older adults with sarcopenia and will also be of value to researchers for standardising approaches to RE interventions in future sarcopenia studies.

The COVID-19 rehabilitation pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the response to the pandemic are combining to produce a tidal wave of need for rehabilitation. Rehabilitation will be needed for survivors of COVID-19, many of whom are older, with underlying health problems. In addition, rehabilitation will be needed for those who have become deconditioned as a result of movement restrictions, social isolation, and inability to access healthcare for pre-existing or new non-COVID-19 illnesses. Delivering rehabilitation in the same way as before the pandemic will not be practical, nor will this approach meet the likely scale of need for rehabilitation. This commentary reviews the likely rehabilitation needs of older people both with and without COVID-19 and discusses how strategies to deliver effective rehabilitation at scale can be designed and implemented in a world living with COVID-19.

Evaluating frailty scores to predict mortality in older adults using data from population based electronic health records: case control study.

BACKGROUND: recognising that a patient is nearing the end of life is essential, to enable professional carers to discuss prognosis and preferences for end of life care. OBJECTIVE: investigate whether an electronic frailty index (eFI) generated from routinely collected data, can be used to predict mortality at an individual level. DESIGN: historical prospective case control study. SETTING: UK primary care electronic health records. SUBJECTS: 13,149 individuals age 75 and over who died between 01/01/2015 and 01/01/2016, 1:1 matched by age and sex to individuals with no record of death in the same time period. METHODS: two subsamples were randomly selected to enable development and validation of the association between eFI 3 months prior to death and mortality. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analyses were used to examine diagnostic accuracy of eFI at 3 months prior to death. RESULTS: an eFI > 0.19 predicted mortality in the development sample at 75% sensitivity and 69% area under received operating curve (AUC). In the validation dataset this cut point gave 76% sensitivity, 53% specificity. CONCLUSIONS: the eFI measured at a single time point has low predictive value for individual risk of death, even 3 months prior to death. Although the eFI is a strong predictor or mortality at a population level, its use for individuals is far less clear.