IntroductionIn 2008, the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport commissioned the National Care for the Elderly Programme. While numerous research projects in older persons’ health care were to be conducted under this national agenda, the Programme further advocated the development of The Older Persons and Informal Caregivers Survey Minimum DataSet (TOPICS-MDS) which would be integrated into all funded research protocols. In this context, we describe TOPICS data sharing initiative (www.topics-mds.eu).Materials and MethodsA working group drafted TOPICS-MDS prototype, which was subsequently approved by a multidisciplinary panel. Using instruments validated for older populations, information was collected on demographics, morbidity, quality of life, functional limitations, mental health, social functioning and health service utilisation. For informal caregivers, information was collected on demographics, hours of informal care and quality of life (including subjective care-related burden).ResultsBetween 2010 and 2013, a total of 41 research projects contributed data to TOPICS-MDS, resulting in preliminary data available for 32,310 older persons and 3,940 informal caregivers. The majority of studies sampled were from primary care settings and inclusion criteria differed across studies.DiscussionTOPICS-MDS is a public data repository which contains essential data to better understand health challenges experienced by older persons and informal caregivers. Such findings are relevant for countries where increasing health-related expenditure has necessitated the evaluation of contemporary health care delivery. Although open sharing of data can be difficult to achieve in practice, proactively addressing issues of data protection, conflicting data analysis requests and funding limitations during TOPICS-MDS developmental phase has fostered a data sharing culture. To date, TOPICS-MDS has been successfully incorporated into 41 research projects, thus supporting the feasibility of constructing a large (>30,000 observations), standardised dataset pooled from various study protocols with different sampling frameworks. This unique implementation strategy improves efficiency and facilitates individual-level data meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether low serum albumin is associated with low muscle strength and future decline in muscle strength in community-dwelling older men and women. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. SETTING: The Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam. PARTICIPANTS: Six hundred seventy-six women and 644 men aged 65 to 88. MEASUREMENTS: Serum albumin was determined at baseline. Muscle strength was assessed using grip strength at baseline, after 3 (n 5 1,009), and 6 (n 5 741) years. The outcomes were continuous baseline muscle strength, 3-and 6-year change in muscle strength, and a dichotomous indicator for substantial decline (a decrease if !1 standard deviations for women 5 11 kg, for men 5 12 kg) in muscle strength. RESULTS: Mean serum albumin concentration AE standard deviation was 45.0 AE 3.3 g/L for women and 45.2 AE 3.2 g/L for men. At baseline, adjusting for age, lifestyle factors, and chronic conditions, lower serum albumin was cross-sectionally associated with weaker muscle strength (Po.001) in women and men. After 3 years of follow-up, mean decline in muscle strength was À 5.6 AE 10.9 kg in women and À 9.6 AE 11.9 kg in men. After adjustment for potential confounders, lower serum albumin was associated with muscle strength decline over 3 years (Po.01) in women and men (b 5 0.57, standard error (SE) 5 0.18; b 5 0.37, SE 5 0.16, respectively). Lower serum albumin was also associated with substantial decline in muscle strength in women (per unit albumin (g/L) adjusted odds ratio (OR) 5 1.14, one-sided 95% confidence limit (CL) 5 1.07) and men (per unit albumin (g/L) adjusted OR 5 1.14, 95% CL 5 1.08). Similar but slightly weaker associations were found between serum albumin and 6-year change in muscle strength (Po.05). CONCLUSION:These results suggest that low serum albumin, even within the normal range, is independently associated with weaker muscle strength and future decline in muscle strength in older women and men. J Am Geriatr Soc 53: 1331-1338, 2005.

The aim of this longitudinal study was to investigate 3-year change in serum albumin concentration as a determinant of incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality. Data were from 713 respondents of the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam initially aged 55-85 years. Serum albumin was measured at baseline (1992/1993) and after 3 years. At the 6-year follow-up, incident CVD (among 456 respondents with no prevalent CVD at the 3-year follow-up) and all-cause mortality were ascertained. Overall, 18.9% developed CVD and 10.9% died. After adjustment for potential confounders, a higher level of serum albumin at the 3-year follow-up was associated with a lower risk for incident CVD (relative risk = 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.79, 0.98). The risk of incident CVD was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.99) per unit (g/liter) increase in change in albumin between 3-year follow-up and baseline. Chronic low serum albumin (or=1 standard deviation (2.5 g/liter) between baseline and 3-year follow-up) tended to be associated with a twofold risk (relative risk = 2.00, 95% CI: 0.91, 4.39). For all-cause mortality, no associations were observed. These findings suggest that older persons with a decrease in serum albumin concentration, even within the normal range, might be at increased risk of incident CVD. Change in serum albumin may be used as an early marker for CVD risk.

A combination of low albumin and low cholesterol levels may increase the risk of future functional decline.

Failure to recover from BP decline in the first minute after active standing up is associated with excess mortality in falls clinic patients. A recovery of systolic BP to less than 80% of baseline after 60 seconds may be used as an easily available cardiovascular marker for increased mortality risk in older falls clinic patients.

No abstract

BACKGROUND:Concerns have been raised about access to cancer screening and the timely receipt of cancer care for people with an intellectual disability (ID). However, knowledge about cancer mortality as a potential consequence of these disparities is still limited. This study, therefore, compared cancer-related mortality patterns between people with and without ID. METHODS: A historical cohort study (2015-2019) linked the Dutch adult population (approximately 12 million people with an ID prevalence of 1.45%) and mortality registries. Cancer-related mortality was identified by the underlying cause of death (according to the chapter on neoplasms in the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision). Observed mortality and calculated age-and sex-standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported. RESULTS: There were 11,102 deaths in the ID population (21.7% cancer-related; n = 2408) and 730,405 deaths in the general population (31.2%; n = 228,120) available for analysis. Cancer was noted as the cause of death more often among people with ID in comparison with the general population (SMR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.42-1.54), particularly in the young age groups. High-mortality cancers included cancers within the national screening program (SMRs,, digestive cancers (SMRs, 1.24-2.56), bladder cancer (SMR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.61-2.54), and cancers of unknown primary (SMR, 2.48; 95% CI, 2.06-2.89). CONCLUSIONS: Cancer was reported as the cause of death approximately 1.5 times more often in people with ID compared with the general population. This mortality disparity may indicate adverse effects from inequalities in screening and cancer care experienced by people with ID.

In this study a prevalence of PA of 2.6% in a primary care setting was established, which is lower than estimates reported from other primary care studies so far. This study supports the screening strategy as recommended by the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. The low proportion of screened patients (9.2%), of the large cohort of eligible patients, reflects the difficulty of conducting prevalence studies in primary care clinical practice.