In elderly populations, frailty is associated with higher mortality risk. Although many frailty scores (FS) have been proposed, no single score is considered the gold standard. We aimed to evaluate the agreement between a wide range of FS in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA). Through a literature search, we identified 35 FS that could be calculated in ELSA wave 2 (2004–2005). We examined agreement between each frailty score and the mean of 35 FS, using a modified Bland-Altman model and Cohen's kappa (κ). Missing data were imputed. Data from 5,377 participants (ages ≥60 years) were analyzed (44.7% men, 55.3% women). FS showed widely differing degrees of agreement with the mean of all scores and between each pair of scores. Frailty classification also showed a very wide range of agreement (Cohen's κ = 0.10–0.83). Agreement was highest among “accumulation of deficits”-type FS, while accuracy was highest for multidimensional FS. There is marked heterogeneity in the degree to which various FS estimate frailty and in the identification of particular individuals as frail. Different FS are based on different concepts of frailty, and most pairs cannot be assumed to be interchangeable. Research results based on different FS cannot be compared or pooled.

Objectives Comparison of two doses of bio-optimized Curcuma longa extract (BCL) in the management of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods A prospective, randomized, 3-month, double-blind, multicenter, three-group, placebo-controlled trial assessing Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PGADA) and serum sColl2-1, a biomarker of cartilage degradation, as co-primary endpoints. Pain on visual analog scale (VAS), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and paracetamol/non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) consumption were used as secondary endpoints. Results One hundred fifty patients with knee OA were followed for 90 days. Low and high doses of BCL showed a greater decrease of PGADA than placebo. Analysis of sColl2-1 showed in the placebo and BCL low-dose groups, but not in the BCL high-dose group, a transient but non-significant increase of sColl2-1 between T0 and T1. Thereafter, in all groups, sColl2-1 decreased between T1 and T3 (all p < 0.01), but no difference between the groups was found. Pain reduction at day 90 in the low- and high-dose BCL groups (− 29.5 mm and − 36.5 mm) was higher than that in the placebo (− 8 mm; p = 0.018). The global KOOS significantly decreased overtime, but changes were comparable across treatment arms. The ratio of patients with adverse events (AE) related to the product was similar in the placebo and treatment groups, but the number of AE linked to the product was higher in the high-dose BCL group compared to the placebo ( p = 0.012). Conclusions BCL appeared safe and well-tolerated with no evidence of severe adverse effects. Efficacy analysis suggested positive trends for measurements of PGADA and serum levels of an OA biomarker and showed a rapid and significant decrease of pain in knee OA (Trial registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN12345678. Registered 21 September 2016—retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02909621?term=osteoarthritis+curcumin&rank=5 —Evaluation of FLEXOFYTOL® Versus PLACEBO (COPRA) NCT02909621). Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13075-019-1960-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundFrail elderly people experience elevated mortality. However, no consensus exists on the definition of frailty, and many frailty scores have been developed. The main aim of this study was to compare the association between 35 frailty scores and incident cardiovascular disease (CVD), incident cancer, and all-cause mortality. Also, we aimed to assess whether frailty scores added predictive value to basic and adjusted models for these outcomes.Methods and findingsThrough a structured literature search, we identified 35 frailty scores that could be calculated at wave 2 of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA), an observational cohort study. We analysed data from 5,294 participants, 44.9% men, aged 60 years and over. We studied the association between each of the scores and the incidence of CVD, cancer, and all-cause mortality during a 7-year follow-up using Cox proportional hazard models at progressive levels of adjustment. We also examined the added predictive performance of each score on top of basic models using Harrell’s C statistic. Using age of the participant as a timescale, in sex-adjusted models, hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence intervals) for all-cause mortality ranged from 2.4 (95% CI: 1.7–3.3) to 26.2 (95% CI: 15.4–44.5). In further adjusted models including smoking status and alcohol consumption, HR ranged from 2.3 (95% CI: 1.6–3.1) to 20.2 (95% CI: 11.8–34.5). In fully adjusted models including lifestyle and comorbidity, HR ranged from 0.9 (95% CI: 0.5–1.7) to 8.4 (95% CI: 4.9–14.4). HRs for CVD and cancer incidence in sex-adjusted models ranged from 1.2 (95% CI: 0.5–3.2) to 16.5 (95% CI: 7.8–35.0) and from 0.7 (95% CI: 0.4–1.2) to 2.4 (95% CI: 1.0–5.7), respectively. In sex- and age-adjusted models, all frailty scores showed significant added predictive performance for all-cause mortality, increasing the C statistic by up to 3%. None of the scores significantly improved basic prediction models for CVD or cancer. A source of bias could be the differences in mortality follow-up time compared to CVD/cancer, because the existence of informative censoring cannot be excluded.ConclusionThere is high variability in the strength of the association between frailty scores and 7-year all-cause mortality, incident CVD, and cancer. With regard to all-cause mortality, some scores give a modest improvement to the predictive ability. Our results show that certain scores clearly outperform others with regard to three important health outcomes in later life. Finally, we think that despite their limitations, the use of frailty scores to identify the elderly population at risk is still a useful measure, and the choice of a frailty score should balance feasibility with performance.

We have shown that in healthy volunteers (HV) one session of 1 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the visual cortex induces dishabituation of visual evoked potentials (VEPs) on average for 30 min, while in migraineurs one session of 10 Hz rTMS replaces the abnormal VEP potentiation by a normal habituation for 9 min. In the present study, we investigated whether repeated rTMS sessions (1 Hz in eight HV; 10 Hz in eight migraineurs) on 5 consecutive days can modify VEPs for longer periods. In all eight HV, the 1 Hz rTMS-induced dishabituation increased in duration over consecutive sessions and persisted between several hours (n=4) and several weeks (n=4) after the fifth session. In six out eight migraineurs, the normalization of VEP habituation by 10 Hz rTMS lasted longer after each daily stimulation but did not exceed several hours after the last session, except in two patients, where it persisted for 2 days and 1 week. Daily rTMS can thus induce long-lasting changes in cortical excitability and VEP habituation pattern. Whether this effect may be useful in preventative migraine therapy remains to be determined.

Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care.