Neonatal TSH ELISA Kit

Background Several tools have been proposed and validated to operationally define frailty. Recently, the Italian Frailty index (IFi), an Italian modified version of Frailty index, has been validated but its use in clinical practice is limited by long time of administration. Therefore, the aim of this study was to create and validate a quick version of the IFi (AGILE). Methods Validation study was performed by administering IFi and AGILE, after a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) in 401 subjects aged 65 or over (77 +/- 7 years). AGILE was a 10-items tool created starting from the more predictive items of the four domains of frailty investigated by IFi (mental, physical, socioeconomic and nutritional). AGILE scores were stratified in light, moderate and severe frailty. At 24 months of follow-up, death, disability (taking into account an increase in ADL lost >= 1 from the baseline) and hospitalization were considered. Area under curve (AUC) was evaluated for both IFi and AGILE. Results Administration time was 9.5 +/- 3.8 min for IFi administered after a CGA, and 2.4 +/- 1.2 min for AGILE, regardless of CGA (p < 0.001). With increasing degree of frailty, prevalence of mortality increased progressively from 6.5 to 41.8% and from 9.0 to 33.3%, disability from 16.1 to 64.2% and from 22.1 to 59.8% and hospitalization from 17.2 to 58.7% and from 27.0 to 52.2% with AGILE and IFi, respectively (p = NS). Relative Risk for each unit of increase in AGILE was 56, 44 and 24% for mortality, disability and hospitalization, respectively and was lower for IFi (8, 7 and 4% for mortality, disability and hospitalization, respectively). The AUC was higher in AGILE vs. IFi for mortality (0.729 vs. 0.698), disability (0.715 vs. 0.682) and hospitalization (0.645 vs. 0.630). Conclusions Our study shows that AGILE is a rapid and effective tool for screening multidimensional frailty, able to predict mortality, disability and hospitalization, especially useful in care settings that require reliable assessment instruments with short administration time.

Background The number of elderly patients with gastrointestinal cancer is rising as the population ages. This study aimed to assess the impact of a preoperative geriatric assessment on postoperative survival and to develop a geriatric prognostic scoring system (GPSS) for elderly patients. Methods Patients (n = 544) age 75 years or older who had undergone radical surgery for gastrointestinal cancer were recruited for this observational study. Geriatric assessments (GAs) using the Barthel Index, the Mini-Mental State Examination, Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, the Vitality Index, and the Geriatric Depression Score were administered before surgery. Multivariable analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazard regression model to identify significant prognostic factors. The GPSS was developed using regression coefficients of the multivariable regression to predict overall survival (OS). Thereafter, 165 consecutive patients were prospectively validated to test the authors' model. Results The independent predictors of OS appeared to be GA as well as age, type of cancer, clinical stage, performance status, and body mass index. The patients were classified into high- and low-risk groups according to the GPSS. The overall 3-year survival was 79% in the low-risk group and 26% in the high-risk group (hazard ratio [HR], 5.69; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.35-7.42; p < 0.0001). Furthermore, when GPSS was applied to independent cohorts, the patients in the high-risk group showed significantly poorer prognoses than those in the low-risk group (HR, 4.49; 95% CI 2.65-7.60; p < 0.0001). Conclusions Geriatric assessments were closely associated with postoperative OS. The GPSS is useful in predicting postoperative prognosis and may help determine treatment strategies for elderly patients with gastrointestinal cancer.