To study risk factors for falling, we conducted a one-year prospective investigation, using a sample of 336 persons at least 75 years of age who were living in the community. All subjects underwent detailed clinical evaluation, including standardized measures of mental status, strength, reflexes, balance, and gait; in addition, we inspected their homes for environmental hazards. Falls and their circumstances were identified during bimonthly telephone calls. During one year of follow-up, 108 subjects (32 percent) fell at least once; 24 percent of those who fell had serious injuries and 6 percent had fractures. Predisposing factors for falls were identified in linear-logistic models. The adjusted odds ratio for sedative use was 28.3; for cognitive impairment, 5.0; for disability of the lower extremities, 3.8; for palmomental reflex, 3.0; for abnormalities of balance and gait, 1.9; and for foot problems, 1.8; the lower bounds of the 95 percent confidence intervals were 1 or more for all variables. The risk of falling increased linearly with the number of risk factors, from 8 percent with none to 78 percent with four or more risk factors (P less than 0.0001). About 10 percent of the falls occurred during acute illness, 5 percent during hazardous activity, and 44 percent in the presence of environmental hazards. We conclude that falls among older persons living in the community are common and that a simple clinical assessment can identify the elderly persons who are at the greatest risk of falling.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM198812293192604

Risk factors for falls among elderly persons living in the community.

Medical practice is constantly changing. The rate of change is accelerating, and physicians can be forgiven if they often find it dizzying. How can physicians learn about new information and innovations, and decide how (if at all) they should modify their practice? Possible sources include summaries from the medical literature (review articles, practice guidelines, consensus statements, editorials, and summary articles in "throwaway" journals); consultation with colleagues who have special expertise; lectures; seminars; advertisements in medical journals; conversations with representatives from pharmaceutical companies; and original articles in journals and journal supplements. Each of these sources of information might be valuable, though each is subject to its own particular biases. 1,2 Problems arise when, as is often the case, these sources of information provide different suggestions about patient care. See also p 2093. Without a way of critically appraising the information they receive, clinicians are relatively helpless in deciding what new information

https://hopkinsmedicine.org/gim/_pdf/jama/17-screening.pdf

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature

Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporos

The criteria required for an effective screening strategy for osteoporosis are largely met in Caucasian women. The disease is common and readily diagnosed by the measurement of bone mineral with single- or dual-energy absorptiometry. Such measurements have high specificity but lower sensitivity, so that the value of the technique is greater for those identified as being at higher risk. Against this background there is little evidence that osteoporosis can usefully be tackled by a public health policy to influence risk factors such as smoking, exercise and nutrition. This suggests that it is appropriate to consider targetting of treatment with agents affecting bone metabolism to susceptible individuals. Since the main benefits of the use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) are probably on cardiovascular morbidity, the major role for selective screening is to direct non-HRT interventions. An appropriate time to consider screening and intervention is at the menopause, but screening at later ages is also worthy of consideration. Since the cost of screening is low and that of bone-active drugs is high, the selective use of screening techniques will improve the cost-benefit ratio of intervention.

Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: synopsis of a WHO report. WHO Study Group.

The assessment of refill compliance using pharmacy records: Methods, validity, and applications

To assess the risk of hip fracture associated with the use of four classes of psychotropic drugs, we performed a case-control study of 1021 patients with hip fractures and 5606 controls among elderly Medicaid enrollees. Persons treated with hypnotics-anxiolytics having short (less than or equal to 24 hours) elimination half-lives had no increased risk of hip fracture. By contrast, a significantly increased risk was associated with current use of hypnotics-anxiolytics having long (greater than 24 hours) elimination half-lives (odds ratio, 1.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.3 to 2.4), tricyclic antidepressants (odds ratio, 1.9; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.3 to 2.8), and antipsychotics (odds ratio, 2.0; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 2.6). The risk increased in relation to the doses of drugs in these three classes. An analysis for possible confounding by dementia did not alter the results. Previous but noncurrent use of drugs in these classes conferred no increase in risk. Although a cause-and-effect relation was not proved, these data support the hypothesis that the sedative and autonomic effects of psychotropic drugs increase the risk of falling and fractures in elderly persons. The results suggest the need for studies of this association in other populations and for evaluation of newer psychotropic drugs with fewer undesirable sedative and autonomic effects.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM198702123160702?listPDF=true

David K. Baugh

Papers

Psychotropic Drug Use and the Risk of Hip Fracture

Psychotropic drug use and the risk of hip fracture