Joshua J Armstrong1, Melissa K Andrew2, Arnold Mitnitski2, Lenore J Launer3, Lon R White4, Kenneth Rockwood2. 1. Geriatric Medicine Research, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 2. Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 3. Laboratory of Epidemiology, Demography and Biometry, Institute of Aging, Bethesda, MD, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Pacific Health Research and Education Institute, Honolulu, HI, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: we evaluated mortality risk in relation to social vulnerability across levels of frailty among a cohort of older Japanese-American men. METHODS: in secondary analysis of the Honolulu-Asia Aging Study (HAAS), participants (n = 3,271) were aged 72-93 years at baseline. A frailty index (FI) created using 58 potential health deficits to quantify participants' frailty level at baseline, with four frailty strata: 0.0 < FI ≤ 0.1 (n = 1,074); 0.1 < FI ≤ 0.20 (n = 1,549); 0.2 < FI ≤ 0.30 (n = 472); FI > 0.3 (n = 176). Similarly, a social vulnerability index was created using 19 self-reported social deficits. Cox proportional hazard modelling was employed to estimate the impact of social vulnerability across the four levels of frailty, accounting for age, smoking, alcohol use and variation in health deficits within each frailty level. RESULTS: for the fittest participants, social vulnerability was associated with mortality (hazards ratio (HR) = 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.01, 1.07; P value = 0.008). Similarly, for those considered at risk for frailty, each social deficit was associated with a 5% increased risk of mortality. For frail individuals, the Cox regression analyses indicated that social vulnerability was not significantly associated with mortality (0.2 < FI ≤ 0.3: HR = 1.016, 95% CI = 0.98, 1.06; P value = 0.442; FI > 0.3: HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.93, 1.04). CONCLUSIONS: for the fittest and at-risk HAAS participants, the accumulation of social deficits was associated with significant increases in mortality risk. For frail individuals (FI > 0.20), the estimation of mortality risk may depend more so on intrinsic factors related to their health.
PURPOSE: we evaluated mortality risk in relation to social vulnerability across levels of frailty among a cohort of older Japanese-American men. METHODS: in secondary analysis of the Honolulu-Asia Aging Study (HAAS), participants (n = 3,271) were aged 72-93 years at baseline. A frailty index (FI) created using 58 potential health deficits to quantify participants' frailty level at baseline, with four frailty strata: 0.0 < FI ≤ 0.1 (n = 1,074); 0.1 < FI ≤ 0.20 (n = 1,549); 0.2 < FI ≤ 0.30 (n = 472); FI > 0.3 (n = 176). Similarly, a social vulnerability index was created using 19 self-reported social deficits. Cox proportional hazard modelling was employed to estimate the impact of social vulnerability across the four levels of frailty, accounting for age, smoking, alcohol use and variation in health deficits within each frailty level. RESULTS: for the fittest participants, social vulnerability was associated with mortality (hazards ratio (HR) = 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.01, 1.07; P value = 0.008). Similarly, for those considered at risk for frailty, each social deficit was associated with a 5% increased risk of mortality. For frail individuals, the Cox regression analyses indicated that social vulnerability was not significantly associated with mortality (0.2 < FI ≤ 0.3: HR = 1.016, 95% CI = 0.98, 1.06; P value = 0.442; FI > 0.3: HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.93, 1.04). CONCLUSIONS: for the fittest and at-risk HAAS participants, the accumulation of social deficits was associated with significant increases in mortality risk. For frail individuals (FI > 0.20), the estimation of mortality risk may depend more so on intrinsic factors related to their health.
Authors: Arnold Mitnitski; Xiaowei Song; Ingmar Skoog; G A Broe; Jafna L Cox; Eva Grunfeld; Kenneth Rockwood Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Mairead M Bartley; Yonas E Geda; Teresa J H Christianson; V Shane Pankratz; Rosebud O Roberts; Ronald C Petersen Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Nicholas M Pajewski; Jeff D Williamson; William B Applegate; Dan R Berlowitz; Linda P Bolin; Glenn M Chertow; Marie A Krousel-Wood; Nieves Lopez-Barrera; James R Powell; Christianne L Roumie; Carolyn Still; Kaycee M Sink; Rocky Tang; Clinton B Wright; Mark A Supiano Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2016-01-11 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Lon R White; Steven D Edland; Laura S Hemmy; Kathleen S Montine; Chris Zarow; Joshua A Sonnen; Jane H Uyehara-Lock; Rebecca P Gelber; G Webster Ross; Helen Petrovitch; Kamal H Masaki; Kelvin O Lim; Lenore J Launer; Thomas J Montine Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Anna Jovanovich; Charles Ginsberg; Zhiying You; Ronit Katz; Walter T Ambrosius; Dan Berlowitz; Alfred K Cheung; Monique Cho; Alexandra K Lee; Henry Punzi; Shakaib Rehman; Christianne Roumie; Mark A Supiano; Clinton B Wright; Michael Shlipak; Joachim H Ix; Michel Chonchol Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: David Cheng; Clark DuMontier; Cenk Yildirim; Brian Charest; Chelsea E Hawley; Min Zhuo; Julie M Paik; Enzo Yaksic; J Michael Gaziano; Nhan Do; Mary Brophy; Kelly Cho; Dae H Kim; Jane A Driver; Nathanael R Fillmore; Ariela R Orkaby Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2021-06-14 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Martine T E Puts; Samar Toubasi; Esther Atkinson; Ana Patricia Ayala; Melissa Andrew; Maureen C Ashe; Howard Bergman; Jenny Ploeg; Katherine S McGilton Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-03-02 Impact factor: 2.692