BackgroundAfter an acute infection, older persons may benefit from geriatric rehabilitation (GR).ObjectivesThis study describes the recovery trajectories of post-COVID-19 patients undergoing GR and... Show moreBackgroundAfter an acute infection, older persons may benefit from geriatric rehabilitation (GR).ObjectivesThis study describes the recovery trajectories of post-COVID-19 patients undergoing GR and explores whether frailty is associated with recovery.DesignMulticentre prospective cohort study.Setting59 GR facilities in 10 European countries.ParticipantsPost-COVID-19 patients admitted to GR between October 2020 and October 2021.MethodsPatients’ characteristics, daily functioning (Barthel index; BI), quality of life (QoL; EQ-5D-5L) and frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale; CFS) were collected at admission, discharge, 6 weeks and 6 months after discharge. We used linear mixed models to examine the trajectories of daily functioning and QoL.Results723 participants were included with a mean age of 75 (SD: 9.91) years. Most participants were pre-frail to frail (median [interquartile range] CFS 6.0 [5.0–7.0]) at admission. After admission, the BI first steeply increased from 11.31 with 2.51 (SE 0.15, P < 0.001) points per month and stabilised around 17.0 (quadratic slope: −0.26, SE 0.02, P < 0.001). Similarly, EQ-5D-5L first steeply increased from 0.569 with 0.126 points per month (SE 0.008, P < 0.001) and stabilised around 0.8 (quadratic slope: −0.014, SE 0.001, P < 0.001). Functional recovery rates were independent of frailty level at admission. QoL was lower at admission for frailer participants, but increased faster, stabilising at almost equal QoL values for frail, pre-frail and fit patients.ConclusionsPost-COVID-19 patients admitted to GR showed substantial recovery in daily functioning and QoL. Frailty at GR admission was not associated with recovery and should not be a reason to exclude patients from GR. Show less
Marang-van de Mheen, J.; Turner, E.B.; Liew, S.; Mutalima, N.; Tran, T.; Rasmussen, S.; ... ; Gordon, A. 2017
Objectives The genetic aetiology of osteoarthritis has not yet been elucidated. To enable a well-powered genome-wide association study (GWAS) for osteoarthritis, the authors have formed the arcOGEN... Show moreObjectives The genetic aetiology of osteoarthritis has not yet been elucidated. To enable a well-powered genome-wide association study (GWAS) for osteoarthritis, the authors have formed the arcOGEN Consortium, a UK-wide collaborative effort aiming to scan genome-wide over 7500 osteoarthritis cases in a two-stage genome-wide association scan. Here the authors report the findings of the stage 1 interim analysis. Methods The authors have performed a genome-wide association scan for knee and hip osteoarthritis in 3177 cases and 4894 population-based controls from the UK. Replication of promising signals was carried out in silico in five further scans (44 449 individuals), and de novo in 14 534 independent samples, all of European descent. Results None of the association signals the authors identified reach genome-wide levels of statistical significance, therefore stressing the need for corroboration in sample sets of a larger size. Application of analytical approaches to examine the allelic architecture of disease to the stage 1 genome-wide association scan data suggests that osteoarthritis is a highly polygenic disease with multiple risk variants conferring small effects. Conclusions Identifying loci conferring susceptibility to osteoarthritis will require large-scale sample sizes and well-defined phenotypes to minimise heterogeneity. Show less
Objective: To address the need for standardization of osteoarthritis (OA) phenotypes by examining the effect of heterogeneity among symptomatic (SOA) and radiographic osteoarthritis (ROA)... Show moreObjective: To address the need for standardization of osteoarthritis (OA) phenotypes by examining the effect of heterogeneity among symptomatic (SOA) and radiographic osteoarthritis (ROA) phenotypes. Methods: Descriptions of OA phenotypes of the 28 studies involved in the TREAT-OA consortium were collected. We investigated whether different OA definitions result in different association results by creating various hip OA definitions in one large population based cohort (the Rotterdam Study I (RSI)) and testing those for association with gender, age and body mass index using one-way ANOVA. For ROA, we standardized the hip-, knee- and hand ROA definitions and calculated prevalence's of ROA before and after standardization in nine cohort studies. This procedure could only be performed in cohort studies and standardization of SOA definitions was not feasible at this moment. Results: In this consortium, all studies with SOA phenotypes (knee, hip and hand) used a different definition and/or assessment of OA status. For knee-, hip- and hand ROA five, four and seven different definitions were used, respectively. Different hip ROA definitions do lead to different association results. For example, we showed in the RSI that hip OA defined as "at least definite joint space narrowing (JSN) and one definite osteophyte" was not associated with gender (P=0.22), but defined as "at least one definite osteophyte" was significantly associated with gender (P=3 x 10(-9)). Therefore, a standardization process was undertaken for ROA definitions. Before standardization a wide range of ROA prevalence's was observed in the nine cohorts studied. After standardization the range in prevalence of knee- and hip ROA was small. Conclusion: Phenotype definitions influence the prevalence of OA and association with clinical variables. ROA phenotypes within the TREAT-OA consortium were standardized to reduce heterogeneity and improve power in future genetics studies. (C) 2010 Osteoarthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
