OBJECTIVES: To test whether women aged 55 and older with increasing evidence of a frailty phenotype would have greater risk of fractures, disability, and recurrent falls than women who were not frail, across geographic areas (Australia, Europe, and North America) and age groups. DESIGN: Multinational, longitudinal, observational cohort study. SETTING: Global Longitudinal Study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW). PARTICIPANTS: Women (N = 48,636) aged 55 and older enrolled at sites in Australia, Europe, and North America. MEASUREMENTS: Components of frailty (slowness and weakness, poor endurance and exhaustion, physical activity, and unintentional weight loss) at baseline and report of fracture, disability, and recurrent falls at 1 year of follow-up were investigated. Women also reported health and demographic characteristics at baseline. RESULTS: Women younger than 75 from the United States were more likely to be prefrail and frail than those from Australia, Canada, and Europe. The distribution of frailty was similar according to region for women aged 75 and older. Odds ratios from multivariable models for frailty versus nonfrailty were 1.23 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.07-1.42) for fracture, 2.29 (95% CI = 2.09-2.51) for disability, and 1.68 (95% CI = 1.54-1.83) for recurrent falls. The associations for prefrailty versus nonfrailty were weaker but still indicated statistically significantly greater risk of each outcome. Overall, associations between frailty and each outcome were similar across age and geographic region. CONCLUSION: Greater evidence of a frailty phenotype is associated with greater risk of fracture, disability, and falls in women aged 55 and older in 10 countries, with similar patterns across age and geographic region.
OBJECTIVES: To test whether women aged 55 and older with increasing evidence of a frailty phenotype would have greater risk of fractures, disability, and recurrent falls than women who were not frail, across geographic areas (Australia, Europe, and North America) and age groups. DESIGN: Multinational, longitudinal, observational cohort study. SETTING: Global Longitudinal Study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW). PARTICIPANTS: Women (N = 48,636) aged 55 and older enrolled at sites in Australia, Europe, and North America. MEASUREMENTS: Components of frailty (slowness and weakness, poor endurance and exhaustion, physical activity, and unintentional weight loss) at baseline and report of fracture, disability, and recurrent falls at 1 year of follow-up were investigated. Women also reported health and demographic characteristics at baseline. RESULTS: Women younger than 75 from the United States were more likely to be prefrail and frail than those from Australia, Canada, and Europe. The distribution of frailty was similar according to region for women aged 75 and older. Odds ratios from multivariable models for frailty versus nonfrailty were 1.23 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.07-1.42) for fracture, 2.29 (95% CI = 2.09-2.51) for disability, and 1.68 (95% CI = 1.54-1.83) for recurrent falls. The associations for prefrailty versus nonfrailty were weaker but still indicated statistically significantly greater risk of each outcome. Overall, associations between frailty and each outcome were similar across age and geographic region. CONCLUSION: Greater evidence of a frailty phenotype is associated with greater risk of fracture, disability, and falls in women aged 55 and older in 10 countries, with similar patterns across age and geographic region.
Authors: Alexander Kulminski; Anatoli Yashin; Svetlana Ukraintseva; Igor Akushevich; Konstantin Arbeev; Kenneth Land; Kenneth Manton Journal: Mech Ageing Dev Date: 2006-09-14 Impact factor: 5.432
Authors: Karen Bandeen-Roche; Qian-Li Xue; Luigi Ferrucci; Jeremy Walston; Jack M Guralnik; Paulo Chaves; Scott L Zeger; Linda P Fried Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: L P Fried; C M Tangen; J Walston; A B Newman; C Hirsch; J Gottdiener; T Seeman; R Tracy; W J Kop; G Burke; M A McBurnie Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Kristine E Ensrud; Susan K Ewing; Brent C Taylor; Howard A Fink; Peggy M Cawthon; Katie L Stone; Teresa A Hillier; Jane A Cauley; Marc C Hochberg; Nicolas Rodondi; J Kathleen Tracy; Steven R Cummings Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2008-02-25
Authors: Caroline S Blaum; Qian Li Xue; Jing Tian; Richard D Semba; Linda P Fried; Jeremy Walston Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Ho-Joong Kim; Saejong Park; Soo-Hyun Park; Young Woo Heo; Bong-Soon Chang; Choon-Ki Lee; Jin S Yeom Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Orla Ni Mhuircheartaigh; Cynthia S Crowson; Sherine E Gabriel; Veronique L Roger; L Joseph Melton; Shreyasee Amin Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2017-01-15 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Marjan Askari; Saied Eslami; Alice C Scheffer; Stephanie Medlock; Sophia E de Rooij; Nathalie van der Velde; Ameen Abu-Hanna Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Gabrielle A Langmann; Subashan Perera; Mary A Ferchak; David A Nace; Neil M Resnick; Susan L Greenspan Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 5.562