• Bmc Med · Sep 2024

    Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Pragmatic Clinical Trial

    Effectiveness of comprehensive geriatric assessment adapted to primary care when provided by a nurse or a general practitioner: the CEpiA cluster-randomised trial.

    • Veronique Orcel, Leon Banh, Sylvie Bastuji-Garin, Vincent Renard, Emmanuelle Boutin, Amel Gouja, Philippe Caillet, Elena Paillaud, Etienne Audureau, and Emilie Ferrat.
    • Department of General Practice, Univ Paris Est Creteil (UPEC), Health Faculty, 8 Rue du Général Sarrail, Creteil, 94010, France.
    • Bmc Med. 2024 Sep 27; 22 (1): 414414.

    BackgroundThe benefits of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) are well established for hospital care but less so for primary care. Our primary objective was to assess the effect of two multifaceted interventions based on a CGA adapted for primary care on a composite criterion combining all-cause mortality, emergency department visits, unplanned hospital admissions, and institutionalisation.MethodsThis open-label, pragmatic, three-arm, cluster-randomised controlled trial involved 39 general practices in France. It included 634 patients aged 70 years or over with chronic health conditions and/or an unplanned hospital admission in the past 3 months, between 05/2016 and 08/2018. Interventions were in arm 1: a systematic nurse-led CGA; arm 2: a GP-led CGA, at the GP's discretion; arm 3: standard care. The primary composite endpoint was assessed at 12 months. The secondary endpoints included: components of the composite endpoint, health-related quality of life (Duke Health Profile), functional status (Katz Activities of Daily Living Index) and medications (number) at 12 months. Pairwise comparisons between the experimental groups and the control were tested. The main analysis was performed on the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, after imputing missing information and adjusting for baseline imbalances by mixed effects regressions.ResultsFor the primary composite outcome, no statistically significant difference was found between arm 1 and the control (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.81 [95%CI 0.54-1.21], P = 0.31), whereas arm 2 and the control differed significantly (aOR = 0.60 [0.39-0.93], P = 0.022). A statistically lower risk of unplanned hospital admission in arm 2 vs control (aOR = 0.57 [0.36-0.92], P = 0.020)) was observed, while no statistically significant differences were found for the other components and between arm 1 and the control. None of the other secondary endpoints differed between arms.ConclusionsOur study led in community-dwelling older patients with chronic conditions found no significant effect of a CGA adapted for primary care on mortality, functional independence and quality of life, but suggests that a GP-led CGA may reduce the risk of unplanned hospital admission. Our study demonstrates the feasibility of incorporating CGA into clinical practice and highlights its potential benefits when applied on a case-by-case basis, guided by the GPs who develop the resulting PCP.Trial RegistrationNCT02664454.© 2024. The Author(s).

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…