Claudio Pedone1, Luisa Costanzo2, Matteo Cesari3, Stefania Bandinelli4, Luigi Ferrucci5, Raffaele Antonelli Incalzi6. 1. Area di Geriatria, Università Campus Biomedico, Roma, Italy. 2. Area di Geriatria, Università Campus Biomedico, Roma, Italy. l.costanzo@unicampus.it. 3. Institut du Vieillissement. Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France. 4. Azienda Sanitaria di Firenze, Florence, Italy. 5. National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Baltimore, Maryland. 6. Area di Geriatria, Università Campus Biomedico, Roma, Italy. Fondazione S. Raffaele, Cittadella della Carità, Taranto, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The frailty phenotype (FP) proposed by Fried and colleagues (Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, et al.; Cardiovascular Health Study Collaborative Research Group. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56:M146-M156.) requires the administration of performance tests (gait speed, handgrip strength) not always feasible in routine clinical practice. Furthermore, the discriminative capacity of the instrument has been rarely investigated. Aim of this study was to evaluate the discriminative capacity of the FP and compare it with a modified version including only anamnestic information. METHODS: Data are from 890 participants of the InCHIANTI study without impairment in activities of daily living (ADL) at baseline (mean age 74 years, women 55%). Frailty was defined by (a) the presence of ≥ 3 criteria of the FP, and (b) having ≥ 2 criteria of an anamnestic FP (AFP), not including gait speed and handgrip strength. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) were used to evaluate the discriminative capacity of both definitions for incident disability (ie, loss of at least one ADL), incidence of "accelerated" disability (loss of >2 ADL) over a 6-year follow-up, and 5-years mortality. RESULTS: FP and AFP yielded a frailty prevalence of 6.4% and 6.5%, respectively; only 32 patients were considered frail by both indices (kappa: .53). For incident disability, FP showed sensitivity = .194, specificity = .963, PPV = .400, and NPV = .903. Similarly, AFP had sensitivity = .129, specificity = .949, PPV = .245, and NPV = .894. Consistent results were found for accelerated disability and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In our sample, both FP and AFP showed low sensitivity in identifying older people who would die or develop disability, but they could well discriminate people who would not experience adverse outcomes.
BACKGROUND: The frailty phenotype (FP) proposed by Fried and colleagues (Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, et al.; Cardiovascular Health Study Collaborative Research Group. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56:M146-M156.) requires the administration of performance tests (gait speed, handgrip strength) not always feasible in routine clinical practice. Furthermore, the discriminative capacity of the instrument has been rarely investigated. Aim of this study was to evaluate the discriminative capacity of the FP and compare it with a modified version including only anamnestic information. METHODS: Data are from 890 participants of the InCHIANTI study without impairment in activities of daily living (ADL) at baseline (mean age 74 years, women 55%). Frailty was defined by (a) the presence of ≥ 3 criteria of the FP, and (b) having ≥ 2 criteria of an anamnestic FP (AFP), not including gait speed and handgrip strength. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) were used to evaluate the discriminative capacity of both definitions for incident disability (ie, loss of at least one ADL), incidence of "accelerated" disability (loss of >2 ADL) over a 6-year follow-up, and 5-years mortality. RESULTS: FP and AFP yielded a frailty prevalence of 6.4% and 6.5%, respectively; only 32 patients were considered frail by both indices (kappa: .53). For incident disability, FP showed sensitivity = .194, specificity = .963, PPV = .400, and NPV = .903. Similarly, AFP had sensitivity = .129, specificity = .949, PPV = .245, and NPV = .894. Consistent results were found for accelerated disability and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In our sample, both FP and AFP showed low sensitivity in identifying older people who would die or develop disability, but they could well discriminate people who would not experience adverse outcomes.
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: Kenneth Rockwood; Xiaowei Song; Chris MacKnight; Howard Bergman; David B Hogan; Ian McDowell; Arnold Mitnitski Journal: CMAJ Date: 2005-08-30 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Nancy Fugate Woods; Andrea Z LaCroix; Shelly L Gray; Aaron Aragaki; Barbara B Cochrane; Robert L Brunner; Kamal Masaki; Anne Murray; Anne B Newman Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 5.562
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: Kristine E Ensrud; Susan K Ewing; Peggy M Cawthon; Howard A Fink; Brent C Taylor; Jane A Cauley; Thuy-Tien Dam; Lynn M Marshall; Eric S Orwoll; Steven R Cummings Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2009-02-22 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Umberto Vespasiani-Gentilucci; Antonio De Vincentis; Luigi Ferrucci; Stefania Bandinelli; Raffaele Antonelli Incalzi; Antonio Picardi Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2018-06-14 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Dae Hyun Kim; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Robert J Glynn; Lewis A Lipsitz; Kenneth Rockwood; Jerry Avorn Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2018-06-14 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Il-Young Jang; Hee-Won Jung; Chang Ki Lee; Kwang Ho Jang; Eun-Il Cho; Ju Jin Jung; Euna Park; Juyoung Kim; Young Soo Lee; Eunju Lee; Dae Hyun Kim Journal: Geriatr Gerontol Int Date: 2017-03-30 Impact factor: 2.730