Oleg Zaslavsky1, Shira Zelber-Sagi2, Shelly L Gray3, Andrea Z LaCroix4, Robert L Brunner5, Robert B Wallace6, Mary J O'Sullivan7, Barbara Cochrane8, Nancy F Woods8. 1. School of Nursing, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. ozasl@uw.edu. 2. Faculty of Health Sciences and Social Welfare, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel. 3. School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 4. Division of Epidemiology, School of Medicine, University of California at San Diego, San Diego, California. 5. Department of Nutrition, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada. 6. College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 7. Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida. 8. School of Nursing, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the ability of the commonly used Women's Health Initiative (WHI) and Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) frailty phenotypes to predict falls, hip fracture, and death in WHI Clinical Trial participants aged 65 and older. DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort study. SETTING: WHI Clinical Trial. PARTICIPANTS: Participants with data for WHI and CHS frailty phenotypes (N = 3,558). MEASUREMENTS: Frailty was operationally defined in the CHS as the presence of three or more of weight loss, poor energy, weakness, slowness, and low physical activity. WHI operationalized frailty similarly but with the RAND-36 physical function scale substituted for slowness and weakness (RAND-36 physical function scale score <13 = 2 points, 13-78 = 1 point, >78 = 0 points). Frailty was defined as a summary score of 3 or greater, prefrailty as a score of 2 or 1, and nonfrailty as a score of 0. Outcomes were modeled using Cox regression. Harrell C-statistics were compared for models containing alternative instruments. RESULTS: Approximately 5% of participants were frail based on the CHS or WHI phenotype. The WHI frailty phenotype was associated with higher rates of falls (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.48, P = .003), hip fracture (HR = 1.87, P = .04), and death (HR = 2.32, P < .001). Comparable HRs in CHS-phenotype frail women were 1.32 (P = .04), 1.08 (P = .83), and 1.91 (P < .001), respectively. Harrell C-statistics revealed marked but insignificant differences in predicting abilities between CHS and WHI phenotype models (P > .50 for all). CONCLUSION: The WHI phenotype, which does not require direct measurements of physical performance, might offer a practical advantage for epidemiological and clinical needs.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To compare the ability of the commonly used Women's Health Initiative (WHI) and Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) frailty phenotypes to predict falls, hip fracture, and death in WHI Clinical Trial participants aged 65 and older. DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort study. SETTING: WHI Clinical Trial. PARTICIPANTS: Participants with data for WHI and CHS frailty phenotypes (N = 3,558). MEASUREMENTS: Frailty was operationally defined in the CHS as the presence of three or more of weight loss, poor energy, weakness, slowness, and low physical activity. WHI operationalized frailty similarly but with the RAND-36 physical function scale substituted for slowness and weakness (RAND-36 physical function scale score <13 = 2 points, 13-78 = 1 point, >78 = 0 points). Frailty was defined as a summary score of 3 or greater, prefrailty as a score of 2 or 1, and nonfrailty as a score of 0. Outcomes were modeled using Cox regression. Harrell C-statistics were compared for models containing alternative instruments. RESULTS: Approximately 5% of participants were frail based on the CHS or WHI phenotype. The WHI frailty phenotype was associated with higher rates of falls (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.48, P = .003), hip fracture (HR = 1.87, P = .04), and death (HR = 2.32, P < .001). Comparable HRs in CHS-phenotype frail women were 1.32 (P = .04), 1.08 (P = .83), and 1.91 (P < .001), respectively. Harrell C-statistics revealed marked but insignificant differences in predicting abilities between CHS and WHI phenotype models (P > .50 for all). CONCLUSION: The WHI phenotype, which does not require direct measurements of physical performance, might offer a practical advantage for epidemiological and clinical needs.
Authors: K L Perell; A Nelson; R L Goldman; S L Luther; N Prieto-Lewis; L Z Rubenstein Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Olga Theou; Lynne Cann; Joanna Blodgett; Lindsay M K Wallace; Thomas D Brothers; Kenneth Rockwood Journal: Ageing Res Rev Date: 2015-04-04 Impact factor: 10.895
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: Kirsten L Johansen; Lorien S Dalrymple; Cynthia Delgado; George A Kaysen; John Kornak; Barbara Grimes; Glenn M Chertow Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2014-04-30 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Robert R McLean; Michelle D Shardell; Dawn E Alley; Peggy M Cawthon; Maren S Fragala; Tamara B Harris; Anne M Kenny; Katherine W Peters; Luigi Ferrucci; Jack M Guralnik; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Douglas P Kiel; Maria T Vassileva; Qian-Li Xue; Subashan Perera; Stephanie A Studenski; Thuy-Tien L Dam Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Oleg Zaslavsky; Shira Zelber-Sagi; James R Hebert; Susan E Steck; Nitin Shivappa; Fred K Tabung; Michael D Wirth; Yunqi Bu; James M Shikany; Tonya Orchard; Robert B Wallace; Linda Snetselaar; Lesley F Tinker Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2017-04-19 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Deepika R Laddu; Betsy C Wertheim; David O Garcia; Nancy F Woods; Michael J LaMonte; Bertha Chen; Hoda Anton-Culver; Oleg Zaslavsky; Jane A Cauley; Rowan Chlebowski; JoAnn E Manson; Cynthia A Thomson; Marcia L Stefanick Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2018-02-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Oleg Zaslavsky; Shira Zelber-Sagi; Andrea Z LaCroix; Robert L Brunner; Robert B Wallace; Barbara B Cochrane; Nancy F Woods Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Kexin Zhu; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Heather M Ochs-Balcom; Michael J LaMonte; Kathleen M Hovey; William Evans; Mahalakshmi Shankaran; Bruce R Troen; Hailey R Banack Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2021-08-13 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Jinkyung Cho; Inhwan Lee; Soo Hyun Park; Youngyun Jin; Donghyun Kim; Ji Young Kong; Hyunsik Kang Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 3.411