Dataset Information

Natural Course of Frailty Components in People Who Develop Frailty Syndrome: Evidence From Two Cohort Studies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Frailty is an important geriatric syndrome, but little is known about its development in the years preceding onset of the syndrome. The aim of this study was to examine the progression of frailty and compare the trajectories of each frailty component prior to frailty onset.

Methods

Repeat data were from two cohort studies: the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (n = 1440) with a 15-year follow-up and the InCHIANTI Study (n = 998) with a 9-year follow-up. Participants were classified as frail if they had >3 frailty components (exhaustion, slowness, physical inactivity, weakness, and weight loss). Transitions between frailty components were examined with multistate modeling. Trajectories of frailty components were compared among persons who subsequently developed frailty to matched nonfrail persons by using mixed effects models.

Results

The probabilities were 0.43, 0.40, and 0.36 for transitioning from 0 to 1 frailty component, from 1 component to 2 components, and from 2 components to 3-5 components (the frail state). The transition probability from frail to death was 0.13. Exhaustion separated frail and nonfrail groups already 9 years prior to onset of frailty (pooled risk ratio [RR] = 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-2.24). Slowness (RR = 1.94, 95% CI 1.44-2.61), low activity (RR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.19-2.13), and weakness (RR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.10-1.76) separated frail and nonfrail groups 6 years prior to onset of frailty. The fifth frailty component, weight loss, separated frail and nonfrail groups only at the onset of frailty (RR = 3.36, 95% CI 2.76-4.08).

Conclusions

Evidence from two cohort studies suggests that feelings of exhaustion tend to emerge early and weight loss near the onset of frailty syndrome.

SUBMITTER: Stenholm S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6477647 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Natural Course of Frailty Components in People Who Develop Frailty Syndrome: Evidence From Two Cohort Studies.

Stenholm Sari S Ferrucci Luigi L Vahtera Jussi J Hoogendijk Emiel O EO Huisman Martijn M Pentti Jaana J Lindbohm Joni V JV Bandinelli Stefania S Guralnik Jack M JM Kivimäki Mika M

The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences 20190401 5

<h4>Background</h4>Frailty is an important geriatric syndrome, but little is known about its development in the years preceding onset of the syndrome. The aim of this study was to examine the progression of frailty and compare the trajectories of each frailty component prior to frailty onset.<h4>Methods</h4>Repeat data were from two cohort studies: the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (n = 1440) with a 15-year follow-up and the InCHIANTI Study (n = 998) with a 9-year follow-up. Participants we ...[more]

PMID: 30084927

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Demographic aging results in increased incidence of old-age disability. Frailty is a major factor contributing to old-age disability. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of the frailty phenotype as defined by Fried et al and to estimate the need for associated preventative interventions in early-old community-dwelling inhabitants of the southern industrial region of Poland, as well as to investigate the defining components of the frailty phenotype. Methods:The study group consisted of 160 individuals with an average age of 66.8 ± 4.2 years ( ± SD), 71 (44.4%) of study participants were women. The cohort was randomized out of over 843 thousand community-dwelling Upper Silesian inhabitants aged 60-74 years, who agreed to participate in this project. A comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), frailty phenotype test (as described by Fried et al) blood tests and bioimpedance body structure analysis was completed for study participants. Functional assessment included Barthel Index of Activities of Daily Living (Barthel Index), Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale (IADL), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, Tinetti Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA), and Geriatric Depression Scale - Short Form (GDS-SF). Results:Prefrailty was diagnosed in 24.4% of the subjects (95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 17.7-31.0%; 31% in women and 19.1% in men, P=0.082) and frailty in 2.5% subjects (95% CI 0.1-4.9%; more frequently in women: 4.2% versus 1.1% in men, P=0.046). Having one or more positive frailty criteria was positively associated with depression (odds ratio (OR)=2.85, 95% CI=1.08-7.54, P=0.035) and negatively associated with MMSE score (OR=0.72, 95% CI=0.56-0.93, P=0.012) and fat-free mass (OR=0.96, 95% CI=0.92-0.99, P=0.016) in multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, disease prevalence, number of medications, functional tests (Barthel Index, IADL, MMSE, GDS-SF), BMI, bioimpedance body composition score, and blood tests. Conclusion:At least 25% of the early-old community-dwelling population would benefit from a frailty prevention program. The frailty phenotype reflects both physical and mental health in this population.

Project description:So far, it has not yet been studied whether socioeconomic status is associated with distinct frailty components and for which frailty component this association is the strongest. We aimed to examine the association between socioeconomic status and frailty and frailty components. In addition we assessed the mediating effect of the number of morbidities on the association between socioeconomic status and other frailty components.This is a cross-sectional study of pooled data of The Older Persons and Informal Caregivers Survey Minimum DataSet in the Netherlands among community-dwelling persons aged 55 years and older (n = 26,014). Frailty was measured with a validated Frailty Index that consisted of 45 items. The Frailty Index contained six components: morbidities, limitations in activities of daily living (ADL), limitations in instrumental ADL (IADL), health-related quality of life, psychosocial health and self-rated health. Socioeconomic indicators used were education level and neighbourhood socioeconomic status.Persons with primary or secondary education had higher overall frailty and frailty component scores compared to persons with tertiary education (P < .001). Lower education levels were most consistently associated with higher overall frailty, more morbidities and worse self-rated health (P < .05 in all age groups). The strongest association was found between primary education and low psychosocial health for persons aged 55-69 years and more IADL limitations for persons aged 80+ years. Associations between neighborhood socioeconomic status and frailty (components) also showed inequalities, although less strong. The number of morbidities moderately to strongly mediated the association between socioeconomic indicators and other frailty components.There are socioeconomic inequalities in frailty and frailty components. Inequalities in frailty, number of morbidities and self-rated health are most consistent across age groups. The number of morbidities a person has play an important role in explaining socioeconomic inequalities in frailty and should be taken into account in the management of frailty.

Dataset Information

Natural Course of Frailty Components in People Who Develop Frailty Syndrome: Evidence From Two Cohort Studies.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Natural Course of Frailty Components in People Who Develop Frailty Syndrome: Evidence From Two Cohort Studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure