UNLABELLED: Despite sharing common risk factors and biological pathways, the relationship between frailty and osteoporosis (OP) is not clear. This prospective study has shown that frailty defined by the Vulnerable Elders Survey can predict a decrease in bone mineral density after 1 year. Thus, frail older women should be assessed for osteoporosis. INTRODUCTION: Frailty and OP share common risk factors such as age, sarcopenia, lack of physical activity, low body weight, and smoking. Despite shared risk factors and biological pathways, the relationship between frailty and OP is not clear. The purpose of our prospective study was to examine this relationship in a community sample of older women. METHODS: A sample of 235 community-dwelling women was assessed for demographic, medical, frailty and OP status at baseline, and after at least 1 year. Frailty was assessed using the Cardiovascular Health study (CHS) frailty phenotype and using the Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13). OP was measured using dual photon absorptiometry bone mineral density (BMD). Descriptive statistics and regression models were used. RESULTS: At baseline, 235 women with a mean age of 77.6 (SD = 5.4), body mass index (BMI) of 28.3 (SD = 5.2) kg/m(2), and BMD of 0.7 (SD = 0.2) g/cm(2)were assessed. No correlation was found between BMD and the CHS (BMD spine, r = 0.009, p = 0.889; BMD hips, r = 0.050, p = 0.473) or the VES-13 (BMD spine, r = 0.034, p = 0.605; BMD hips, r = -0.042, p = 0.537) frailty scales. One hundred fifty-two (63.9 %) women were assessed after 1 year. In a regression model, women who were frail at baseline (VES-13) were found to have a statistically significantly lower hip and spine BMD at follow-up (controlling for BMI) than women who were non-frail at baseline (p = 0.0393, hip; p = 0.0069, spine). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty status as defined by the VES-13 predicts a decrease in BMD after 1 year.
UNLABELLED: Despite sharing common risk factors and biological pathways, the relationship between frailty and osteoporosis (OP) is not clear. This prospective study has shown that frailty defined by the Vulnerable Elders Survey can predict a decrease in bone mineral density after 1 year. Thus, frail older women should be assessed for osteoporosis. INTRODUCTION: Frailty and OP share common risk factors such as age, sarcopenia, lack of physical activity, low body weight, and smoking. Despite shared risk factors and biological pathways, the relationship between frailty and OP is not clear. The purpose of our prospective study was to examine this relationship in a community sample of older women. METHODS: A sample of 235 community-dwelling women was assessed for demographic, medical, frailty and OP status at baseline, and after at least 1 year. Frailty was assessed using the Cardiovascular Health study (CHS) frailty phenotype and using the Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13). OP was measured using dual photon absorptiometry bone mineral density (BMD). Descriptive statistics and regression models were used. RESULTS: At baseline, 235 women with a mean age of 77.6 (SD = 5.4), body mass index (BMI) of 28.3 (SD = 5.2) kg/m(2), and BMD of 0.7 (SD = 0.2) g/cm(2)were assessed. No correlation was found between BMD and the CHS (BMD spine, r = 0.009, p = 0.889; BMD hips, r = 0.050, p = 0.473) or the VES-13 (BMD spine, r = 0.034, p = 0.605; BMD hips, r = -0.042, p = 0.537) frailty scales. One hundred fifty-two (63.9 %) women were assessed after 1 year. In a regression model, women who were frail at baseline (VES-13) were found to have a statistically significantly lower hip and spine BMD at follow-up (controlling for BMI) than women who were non-frail at baseline (p = 0.0393, hip; p = 0.0069, spine). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty status as defined by the VES-13 predicts a decrease in BMD after 1 year.
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: G Abellan van Kan; Y Rolland; H Bergman; J E Morley; S B Kritchevsky; B Vellas Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Luigi Ferrucci; Jack M Guralnik; Stephanie Studenski; Linda P Fried; Gordon B Cutler; Jeremy D Walston Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Monica C Tembo; Mohammadreza Mohebbi; Kara L Holloway-Kew; James Gaston; Sharon L Brennan-Olsen; Lana J Williams; Mark A Kotowicz; Julie A Pasco Journal: Calcif Tissue Int Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: L Langsetmo; S I Barr; C Berger; N Kreiger; E Rahme; J D Adachi; A Papaioannou; S M Kaiser; J C Prior; D A Hanley; C S Kovacs; R G Josse; D Goltzman Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Guowei Li; Lehana Thabane; Alexandra Papaioannou; George Ioannidis; Mitchell A H Levine; Jonathan D Adachi Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2017-01-26 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Michael J Cook; Alexander Oldroyd; Stephen R Pye; Kate A Ward; Evelien Gielen; Rathi Ravindrarajah; Judith E Adams; David M Lee; Gyorgy Bartfai; Steven Boonen; Felipe Casanueva; Gianni Forti; Aleksander Giwercman; Thang S Han; Ilpo T Huhtaniemi; Krzysztof Kula; Michael E Lean; Neil Pendleton; Margus Punab; Dirk Vanderschueren; Frederick C Wu; Terence W O'Neill Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 10.668