Liang Feng1, Ma Shwe Zin Nyunt1, Lei Feng1, Keng Bee Yap2, Tze Pin Ng3. 1. Gerontology Research Program, Department of Psychological Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore. 2. Geriatric Medicine Department, Alexandra Hospital, Ministry of Health, Singapore. 3. Gerontology Research Program, Department of Psychological Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore. Electronic address: pcmngtp@nus.edu.sg.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the cross-sectional and longitudinal relationships between physical frailty at baseline and depressive symptoms at baseline and at follow-up. DESIGN: Four-year prospective study. SETTING: Communities in the South East Region of Singapore. PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed data of 1827 older Chinese adults aged 55 and above in the Singapore Longitudinal Aging Study-I. MEASUREMENTS: The frailty phenotype (based on Fried criteria) was determined at baseline, depressive symptoms (Geriatric Depression Scale ≥ 5) at baseline and follow-ups at 2 and 4 years. RESULTS: The mean age of the population was 65.9 (standard deviation 7.26). At baseline, 11.4% (n = 209) had depressive symptoms, 32.4% (n = 591) were prefrail and 2.5% (n = 46) were frail. In cross-sectional analysis of baseline data, the adjusted odds ratios (OR)s and 95% confidence intervals controlling for demographic, comorbidities, and other confounders were 1.69 (1.23-2.33) for prefrailty and 2.36 (1.08-5.15) for frailty, (P for linear trend <.001). In longitudinal data analyses, prospective associations among all participants were: prefrail: OR = 1.86 (1.08-3.20); frail: OR = 3.09 (1.12-8.50); (P for linear trend = .009). Among participants free of depressive symptoms at baseline, similar prospective associations were found: prefrail OR = 2.26 (1.12-4.57); frail: OR = 3.75 (1.07-13.16); (P for linear trend = .009). CONCLUSION: These data support a significant role of frailty as a predictor of depression in a relatively younger old Chinese population. Further observational and interventional studies should explore short-term dynamic and bidirectional associations and the effects of frailty reversal on depression risk.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the cross-sectional and longitudinal relationships between physical frailty at baseline and depressive symptoms at baseline and at follow-up. DESIGN: Four-year prospective study. SETTING: Communities in the South East Region of Singapore. PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed data of 1827 older Chinese adults aged 55 and above in the Singapore Longitudinal Aging Study-I. MEASUREMENTS: The frailty phenotype (based on Fried criteria) was determined at baseline, depressive symptoms (Geriatric Depression Scale ≥ 5) at baseline and follow-ups at 2 and 4 years. RESULTS: The mean age of the population was 65.9 (standard deviation 7.26). At baseline, 11.4% (n = 209) had depressive symptoms, 32.4% (n = 591) were prefrail and 2.5% (n = 46) were frail. In cross-sectional analysis of baseline data, the adjusted odds ratios (OR)s and 95% confidence intervals controlling for demographic, comorbidities, and other confounders were 1.69 (1.23-2.33) for prefrailty and 2.36 (1.08-5.15) for frailty, (P for linear trend <.001). In longitudinal data analyses, prospective associations among all participants were: prefrail: OR = 1.86 (1.08-3.20); frail: OR = 3.09 (1.12-8.50); (P for linear trend = .009). Among participants free of depressive symptoms at baseline, similar prospective associations were found: prefrail OR = 2.26 (1.12-4.57); frail: OR = 3.75 (1.07-13.16); (P for linear trend = .009). CONCLUSION: These data support a significant role of frailty as a predictor of depression in a relatively younger old Chinese population. Further observational and interventional studies should explore short-term dynamic and bidirectional associations and the effects of frailty reversal on depression risk.
Authors: A Hajek; C Brettschneider; T Posselt; C Lange; S Mamone; B Wiese; S Weyerer; J Werle; A Fuchs; M Pentzek; J Stein; T Luck; H Bickel; E Mösch; K Heser; F Jessen; W Maier; M Scherer; S G Riedel-Heller; H-H König Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2016 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Jonathan M Konel; Fatima Warsame; Hao Ying; Christine E Haugen; Alexandra Mountford; Nadia M Chu; Deidra C Crews; Niraj M Desai; Jacqueline M Garonzik-Wang; Jeremy D Walston; Silas P Norman; Dorry L Segev; Mara A McAdams-DeMarco Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2018-09-23 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Rose M Collard; Hannie C Comijs; Paul Naarding; Brenda W Penninx; Yuri Milaneschi; Luigi Ferrucci; Richard C Oude Voshaar Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2015-02-27 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Ivan Aprahamian; Marcus K Borges; Denise J C Hanssen; Hans W Jeuring; Richard C Oude Voshaar Journal: Clin Interv Aging Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 3.829
Authors: T P Ng; M S Z Nyunt; L Feng; L Feng; M Niti; B Y Tan; G Chan; S A Khoo; S M Chan; P Yap; K B Yap Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2017 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: David R Lorenz; Shibani S Mukerji; Vikas Misra; Hajime Uno; Benjamin B Gelman; David J Moore; Elyse J Singer; Susan Morgello; Dana Gabuzda Journal: AIDS Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 4.177