OBJECTIVES: To determine the cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels and frailty status in older men. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Six U.S. community-based centers. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand six hundred six men aged 65 and older. MEASUREMENTS: 25(OH)D (liquid chromatography tandem mass spectroscopy) and frailty status (criteria similar to those used in the Cardiovascular Health Study) measured at baseline; frailty status assessment repeated an average of 4.6 years later. Frailty status was classified as robust, intermediate, or frail at baseline and robust, intermediate, frail, or dead at follow-up. RESULTS: After adjusting for multiple potential confounders, men with 25(OH)D levels less than 20.0 ng/mL had 1.5 times higher odds (multivariate odds ratio (MOR)=1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.07-2.02) of greater frailty status at baseline than men with 25(OH)D levels of 30.0 ng/mL or greater (referent group), whereas frailty status was similar in men with 25(OH)D levels from 20.0 to 29.9 ng/mL and those with levels of 30.0 ng/mL or greater (MOR=1.02, 95% CI=0.78-1.32). However, in 1,267 men not classified as frail at baseline, there was no association between lower baseline 25(OH)D level and odds of greater frailty status at the 4.6-year follow-up. Findings were the same when 25(OH)D was expressed in quartiles or as a continuous variable. CONCLUSION: Lower levels of 25(OH)D (<20.0 ng/mL) in community-dwelling older men were independently associated with greater evidence of frailty at baseline but did not predict greater risk of greater frailty status at 4.6 years.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels and frailty status in older men. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Six U.S. community-based centers. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand six hundred six men aged 65 and older. MEASUREMENTS: 25(OH)D (liquid chromatography tandem mass spectroscopy) and frailty status (criteria similar to those used in the Cardiovascular Health Study) measured at baseline; frailty status assessment repeated an average of 4.6 years later. Frailty status was classified as robust, intermediate, or frail at baseline and robust, intermediate, frail, or dead at follow-up. RESULTS: After adjusting for multiple potential confounders, men with 25(OH)D levels less than 20.0 ng/mL had 1.5 times higher odds (multivariate odds ratio (MOR)=1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.07-2.02) of greater frailty status at baseline than men with 25(OH)D levels of 30.0 ng/mL or greater (referent group), whereas frailty status was similar in men with 25(OH)D levels from 20.0 to 29.9 ng/mL and those with levels of 30.0 ng/mL or greater (MOR=1.02, 95% CI=0.78-1.32). However, in 1,267 men not classified as frail at baseline, there was no association between lower baseline 25(OH)D level and odds of greater frailty status at the 4.6-year follow-up. Findings were the same when 25(OH)D was expressed in quartiles or as a continuous variable. CONCLUSION: Lower levels of 25(OH)D (<20.0 ng/mL) in community-dwelling older men were independently associated with greater evidence of frailty at baseline but did not predict greater risk of greater frailty status at 4.6 years.
Authors: Andrew S Levey; Josef Coresh; Tom Greene; Jane Marsh; Lesley A Stevens; John W Kusek; Frederick Van Lente Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2007-03-01 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Elisabete Michelon; Caroline Blaum; Richard D Semba; Qian-Li Xue; Michelle O Ricks; Linda P Fried Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Richard D Semba; Benedetta Bartali; Jing Zhou; Caroline Blaum; Chia-Wen Ko; Linda P Fried Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Martine T E Puts; Marjolein Visser; Jos W R Twisk; Dorly J H Deeg; Paul Lips Journal: Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 3.478
Authors: Kenneth Rockwood; Susan E Howlett; Chris MacKnight; B Lynn Beattie; Howard Bergman; Réjean Hébert; David B Hogan; Christina Wolfson; Ian McDowell Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Peggy M Cawthon; Lynn M Marshall; Yvonne Michael; Thuy-Tien Dam; Kristine E Ensrud; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Eric S Orwoll Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Kristine E Ensrud; Susan K Ewing; Brent C Taylor; Howard A Fink; Katie L Stone; Jane A Cauley; J Kathleen Tracy; Marc C Hochberg; Nicolas Rodondi; Peggy M Cawthon Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: H Johansson; A Odén; J Kanis; E McCloskey; M Lorentzon; Ö Ljunggren; M K Karlsson; P M Thorsby; Å Tivesten; E Barrett-Connor; C Ohlsson; D Mellström Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2011-10-19 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Clifford J Rosen; John S Adams; Daniel D Bikle; Dennis M Black; Marie B Demay; JoAnn E Manson; M Hassan Murad; Christopher S Kovacs Journal: Endocr Rev Date: 2012-05-17 Impact factor: 19.871
Authors: M H Suominen; S K Jyvakorpi; K H Pitkala; H Finne-Soveri; P Hakala; S Mannisto; H Soini; S Sarlio-Lahteenkorva Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: M Bonnefoy; G Berrut; B Lesourd; M Ferry; T Gilbert; O Guérin; O Hanon; C Jeandel; E Paillaud; A Raynaud-Simon; G Ruault; Y Rolland Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Lisa Langsetmo; Claudie Berger; Nancy Kreiger; Christopher S Kovacs; David A Hanley; Sophie A Jamal; Susan J Whiting; Jacques Genest; Suzanne N Morin; Anthony Hodsman; Jerilynn C Prior; Brian Lentle; Millan S Patel; Jacques P Brown; Tassos Anastasiades; Tanveer Towheed; Robert G Josse; Alexandra Papaioannou; Jonathan D Adachi; William D Leslie; K Shawn Davison; David Goltzman Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2013-05-23 Impact factor: 5.958