Frailty Fantasia

The impact of low back pain and disability on frailty levels in older women: longitudinal data from the BACE-Brazil cohort

METHODS

This is a longitudinal observational study with a convenience subsample from the international Back Complaints in the Elders (BACE)-Brazil. Frailty was assessed by researchers at baseline, 6 and 12 months according to the Frailty Phenotype. Pain was assessed using a Numerical Pain Scale (NPS). Disability was assessed using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 155 older women (70.4 ± 5.4 years) participated. Follow-up for 6 and 12 months in this study was associated with a change of older women to worse frailty levels (OR = 2.83, 95% CI 1.98-4.67; p < 0.01). A significant association was observed between greater pain intensity and the transition of the older women through the frailty levels (β = - 0.73; p < 0.01) when inserting the pain variable at baseline of the statistical model. Older women who reported greater pain intensity worsened their frailty level. The same happened when the disability variable was inserted in the model (β = - 0.74; p < 0.01). The criteria proposed by Fried et al. were able to identify frailty throughout the follow-up and no prevalence of any item.

CONCLUSIONS

In older women, relevant factors such as pain and disability are closely linked to the frailty phenomenon. Thus, the frailty syndrome must be assessed, monitored and treated in relation to the individualities of older adults, as those with back pain and greater disabilities are more susceptible to frailty.

The Longitudinal Relationship between Frailty, Loneliness and Cardiovascular Disease: A Prospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

Previous studies had reported that frailty and loneliness were associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The aim of present study was to evaluate the combined effect of frailty and loneliness on the risk of CVD.

METHODS

A total of 9,674 participants from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study were included. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to explore the associations between frailty, loneliness and new-onset CVD, stroke and cardiac events.

RESULTS

During the 7-year follow-up, a total of 1,758 respondents experienced CVD (including 584 stroke and 1,324 cardiac events). Compared to those without loneliness or frailty, individuals with loneliness alone, or with frailty alone, or with both loneliness and frailty were significantly associated with increased risk of CVD, with corresponding HRs (95%CIs) were 1.21(1.07-1.37), 1.57(1.32-1.86) and 1.78(1.52-2.10), respectively. Similarly, participants with loneliness alone, or with frailty alone, or with both loneliness and frailty were associated with higher risk of cardiac events. The significant associations were consistent in age subgroups (participants aged less or more than 60 years).

CONCLUSION

Our study indicated that there was a combined effect of effect of frailty and loneliness on the risk of CVD, stroke and cardiac events. These findings highlighted the importance of identifying loneliness and frailty, and intervening much earlier both in older and younger population.

Association Between Changes in Frailty Index and Clinical Outcomes: An Observational Cohort Study

Purpose

Although the association between a single assessment of frailty index (FI) and clinical outcomes has been revealed in prior studies, there is a lack of knowledge about the prognostic value of FI at different time points and the changes in repeated measurements of FI. Hence, we sought to determine the clinically meaningful changes in FI and reveal the association with the changes and a composite outcome of mortality and institutionalization.

Participants and Methods

This study was based on a longitudinal study of the Pyeongchang Rural Area cohort that included people aged 65 years or older, ambulatory and living at home. Individuals were divided into the worsened group (changes in FI ≥ 0.03 during 2 years) and the stable group (changes in FI < 0.03 during 2 years). The incidence of a composite outcome was compared between the two groups and the relationship was adjusted for age, sex, baseline FI, and follow-up FI.

Results

Of the 953 participants, 403 (42.3%) and 550 (57.7%) were included in the worsened group and the stable group, respectively. The worsened group had a significantly higher risk of the composite outcome than the stable group (HR, 2.37 [95% CI, 1.54–3.67]; p < 0.001). Although the higher risk remained significant after adjusting for age, sex, and baseline FI, the statistical significance disappeared after adjusting for follow-up FI (p = 0.614). The aggravation of FI in the worsened group was predominantly due to aggravation of FI domains, such as activities in daily living, cognitive function and mood, and mobility rather than comorbidity burden.

Conclusion

Aggravation of FI was associated with a composite outcome regardless of baseline FI, and the association was significantly reflected in the follow-up measurement of FI. The worsening FI was mainly attributable to functional geriatric domains.

Current perspectives on defining and mitigating frailty in relation to critical illness

Up to half of ICU survivors, many of whom were premorbidly well, will have residual functional and/or cognitive impairment and be vulnerable to future health problems. Frailty describes vulnerability to poor resolution of homeostasis after a stressor event but it is not clear whether the vulnerability seen after ICU correlates with clinical measures of frailty. In clinical practice, the scales most commonly used in critically ill patients are based on the assessment of severity and survival. Identification and monitoring of frailty in the ICU may be an alternative or complimentary approach, particularly if it helps explain vulnerability during the recovery and rehabilitation period. The purpose of this review is to discuss the use of tools to assess frailty status in the critically ill, and consider their importance in clinical practice. Amongst these, we consider biomarkers with potential to identify patients at greater or lesser risk of developing post-ICU vulnerability.

Transitions between frailty states among community-dwelling older people: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Frailty is a well-established risk factor for adverse health outcomes. However, comparatively little is known about the dynamic nature of frailty and the extent to which it can improve. The purposes of this study were to systematically search for studies examining frailty transitions over time among community-dwelling older people, and to synthesise pooled frailty transitions rates. Four electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL) were searched in July 2018. Inclusion criteria were: prospective design, community-dwelling older people with mean age>60, using 5-item frailty phenotype criteria to define three states: robust, prefrail and frail and the numbers of participants with 9 frailty transition patterns based on frailty status at baseline and follow-up. Exclusion criteria were: selected populations, using fewer than 5 frailty phenotype criteria. Two investigators independently screened 504 studies for eligibility and identified 16 studies for this review. Data were extracted by the two investigators independently. Pooled rates of frailty transition patterns were calculated by random-effects meta-analysis. Among 42,775 community-dwelling older people from 16 studies with a mean follow-up of 3.9 years (range: 1-10 years), 13.7% (95%CI = 11.7-15.8%) improved, 29.1% (95%CI = 25.9-32.5%) worsened and 56.5% (95%CI = 54.2-58.8%) maintained the same frailty status. Among those who were robust at baseline, pooled rates of remaining robust or transitioning to prefrail and frail were 54.0% (95%CI = 48.8-59.1%), 40.6% (95%CI = 36.7-44.7%) and 4.5% (95%CI = 3.2-6.1%), respectively. Among those who were prefrail at baseline, corresponding rates to robust, prefrail and frail were 23.1% (95%CI = 18.8-27.6%), 58.2% (95%CI = 55.6-60.7%) and 18.2% (95%CI = 14.9-21.7%), respectively. Among those who were frail at baseline, pooled rates of transitioning to robust, prefrail and remaining frail were 3.3% (95%CI = 1.6-5.5%), 40.3% (95%CI = 34.6-46.1%) and 54.5% (95%CI = 47.6-61.3%), respectively. Stratified and meta-regression analyses showed age, gender and follow-up period were associated with frailty transition patterns. Older people make dynamic changes in their frailty status. Given that while one quarter of prefrail older people improved to robust only 3% of frail older people did, early interventions should be considered.