Joanna M Blodgett1, Olga Theou2, Susan E Howlett3, Frederick C W Wu4, Kenneth Rockwood2. 1. Andrology Research Unit, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 2. Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 3. Department of Pharmacology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 4. Andrology Research Unit, Developmental and Regenerative Biomedicine Research Group, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (MAHSC), The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: abnormal laboratory test results accumulate with age and can be common in people with few clinically detectable health deficits. A frailty index (FI) based entirely on common physiological and laboratory tests (FI-Lab) might offer pragmatic and scientific advantages compared with a clinical FI (FI-Clin). OBJECTIVES: to compare the FI-Lab with the FI-Clin and to assess their individual and combined relationships with mortality and other adverse health outcomes. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: secondary analysis of the eight-centre, longitudinal European Male Ageing Study (EMAS) of community-dwelling men aged 40-79 at baseline. Follow-up assessment occurred 4.4 ± 0.3 (mean ± SD) years later. METHODS: we constructed a 23-item FI using common laboratory tests, blood pressure and pulse (FI-Lab), compared it with a previously validated 39-item FI using self-report and performance-based measures (FI-Clin) and finally combined both FIs to create a 62-item FI-Combined. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, institutionalisation, doctor visits, medication use, self-reported health, falls and fractures. RESULTS: the mean FI-Lab score was 0.28 ± 0.11, the FI-Clin was 0.13 ± 0.11 and FI-Combined was 0.19 ± 0.09. Age-adjusted models demonstrated that each FI was associated with mortality [HR (CI) FI-Lab: 1.04 (1.03-1.06); FI-Clin: 1.05 (1.04-1.06); FI-Combined: 1.07 (1.06-1.09)], institutionalisation, doctor visits, medication use, self-reported health and falls. Combined in a model with FI-Clin, the FI-Lab remained independently associated with mortality, institutionalisation, doctor visits, medication use and self-reported health. CONCLUSIONS: the FI-Lab detected an increased risk of adverse health outcomes alone and in combination with a clinical FI; further evaluation of the feasibility of the FI-Lab as a frailty screening tool within hospital care settings is needed.
BACKGROUND: abnormal laboratory test results accumulate with age and can be common in people with few clinically detectable health deficits. A frailty index (FI) based entirely on common physiological and laboratory tests (FI-Lab) might offer pragmatic and scientific advantages compared with a clinical FI (FI-Clin). OBJECTIVES: to compare the FI-Lab with the FI-Clin and to assess their individual and combined relationships with mortality and other adverse health outcomes. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: secondary analysis of the eight-centre, longitudinal European Male Ageing Study (EMAS) of community-dwelling men aged 40-79 at baseline. Follow-up assessment occurred 4.4 ± 0.3 (mean ± SD) years later. METHODS: we constructed a 23-item FI using common laboratory tests, blood pressure and pulse (FI-Lab), compared it with a previously validated 39-item FI using self-report and performance-based measures (FI-Clin) and finally combined both FIs to create a 62-item FI-Combined. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, institutionalisation, doctor visits, medication use, self-reported health, falls and fractures. RESULTS: the mean FI-Lab score was 0.28 ± 0.11, the FI-Clin was 0.13 ± 0.11 and FI-Combined was 0.19 ± 0.09. Age-adjusted models demonstrated that each FI was associated with mortality [HR (CI) FI-Lab: 1.04 (1.03-1.06); FI-Clin: 1.05 (1.04-1.06); FI-Combined: 1.07 (1.06-1.09)], institutionalisation, doctor visits, medication use, self-reported health and falls. Combined in a model with FI-Clin, the FI-Lab remained independently associated with mortality, institutionalisation, doctor visits, medication use and self-reported health. CONCLUSIONS: the FI-Lab detected an increased risk of adverse health outcomes alone and in combination with a clinical FI; further evaluation of the feasibility of the FI-Lab as a frailty screening tool within hospital care settings is needed.
Authors: Xintong Zuo; Alison Luciano; Carl F Pieper; James R Bain; Virginia B Kraus; William E Kraus; Miriam C Morey; Harvey J Cohen Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2018-05-08 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Rasheeda K Hall; Sarah Morton; Jonathan Wilson; Dae Hyun Kim; Cathleen Colón-Emeric; Julia J Scialla; Alyssa Platt; Patti L Ephraim; L Ebony Boulware; Jane Pendergast Journal: Kidney360 Date: 2022-07-19
Authors: Chris P Verschoor; David T S Lin; Michael S Kobor; Oxana Mian; Jinhui Ma; Guillaume Pare; Gustavo Ybazeta Journal: Clin Epigenetics Date: 2021-08-23 Impact factor: 6.551
Authors: Ghalib A Bello; Katherine A Ornstein; Roberto G Lucchini; William W Hung; Fred C Ko; Elena Colicino; Emanuela Taioli; Michael A Crane; Andrew C Todd Journal: J Aging Health Date: 2021-03-12