Ariela R Orkaby1, Tammy T Hshieh2, John M Gaziano3, Luc Djousse3, Jane A Driver3. 1. Division of Aging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; VA Boston Healthcare System, Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center (GRECC), Massachusetts Veterans Epidemiology and Research Information Center (MAVERIC), Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: aorkaby@partners.org. 2. Division of Aging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Division of Aging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; VA Boston Healthcare System, Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center (GRECC), Massachusetts Veterans Epidemiology and Research Information Center (MAVERIC), Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As the population ages it is important to identify frailty, a powerful predictor of morbidity and mortality, and often an important unmeasured confounder. We sought to develop a frailty index in the Physician's Health Study (PHS) and estimate the association with mortality. METHODS: Prospective cohort study. Annual questionnaire assessed mood, function and health status. Two frailty scores were compared - cumulative deficit frailty index (PHS FI) and modified Study of Osteoporotic Fracture (mSOF) frailty score. Endpoints committee confirmed mortality. RESULTS: 12,180 male physicians ≥60 years were analyzed. Mean(SD) follow-up was 10(3) years, 2168 deaths occurred. PHS FI identified 4412 (36%) physicians robust, 5305 (44%) pre-frail, and 2463 (20%) frail, while mSOF identified 7323 (61%) robust, 3505 (29%) pre-frail and 1215 (10%) frail. Age-standardized rate of death was lower among subjects identified as robust using the PHS FI, 11/1000 person-years (PY) (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 9.5-11.9) compared to 14/1000PY (95% CI: 13.5-15.4) using mSOF [P-difference <0.001]. In the prefrail group, death rates were 16/1000PY in PHS FI and 21/1000PY in mSOF, [P-difference <0.001]. There was no difference in age-adjusted mortality rates in the frail group according to each definition (35 vs 33/1000PY). Survival analysis showed an increased risk of mortality in each frailty category using either definition, (log-rank p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The PHS FI outperformed mSOF in identifying risk of death particularly in robust and pre-frail categories. Similar indices can be created in existing datasets to identify frail individuals and where appropriate account for frailty, an often unmeasured confounder. Published by Elsevier B.V.
BACKGROUND: As the population ages it is important to identify frailty, a powerful predictor of morbidity and mortality, and often an important unmeasured confounder. We sought to develop a frailty index in the Physician's Health Study (PHS) and estimate the association with mortality. METHODS: Prospective cohort study. Annual questionnaire assessed mood, function and health status. Two frailty scores were compared - cumulative deficit frailty index (PHS FI) and modified Study of Osteoporotic Fracture (mSOF) frailty score. Endpoints committee confirmed mortality. RESULTS: 12,180 male physicians ≥60 years were analyzed. Mean(SD) follow-up was 10(3) years, 2168 deaths occurred. PHS FI identified 4412 (36%) physicians robust, 5305 (44%) pre-frail, and 2463 (20%) frail, while mSOF identified 7323 (61%) robust, 3505 (29%) pre-frail and 1215 (10%) frail. Age-standardized rate of death was lower among subjects identified as robust using the PHS FI, 11/1000 person-years (PY) (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 9.5-11.9) compared to 14/1000PY (95% CI: 13.5-15.4) using mSOF [P-difference <0.001]. In the prefrail group, death rates were 16/1000PY in PHS FI and 21/1000PY in mSOF, [P-difference <0.001]. There was no difference in age-adjusted mortality rates in the frail group according to each definition (35 vs 33/1000PY). Survival analysis showed an increased risk of mortality in each frailty category using either definition, (log-rank p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The PHS FI outperformed mSOF in identifying risk of death particularly in robust and pre-frail categories. Similar indices can be created in existing datasets to identify frail individuals and where appropriate account for frailty, an often unmeasured confounder. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Authors: David J Lowsky; S Jay Olshansky; Jay Bhattacharya; Dana P Goldman Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2013-11-17 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: 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: 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: John E Morley; Bruno Vellas; G Abellan van Kan; Stefan D Anker; Juergen M Bauer; Roberto Bernabei; Matteo Cesari; W C Chumlea; Wolfram Doehner; Jonathan Evans; Linda P Fried; Jack M Guralnik; Paul R Katz; Theodore K Malmstrom; Roger J McCarter; Luis M Gutierrez Robledo; Ken Rockwood; Stephan von Haehling; Maurits F Vandewoude; Jeremy Walston Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Rachel E Ward; Ariela R Orkaby; Jiaying Chen; Tammy T Hshieh; Jane A Driver; J Michael Gaziano; Luc Djousse Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2019-12-16 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Ariela R Orkaby; Kathryn L Lunetta; Fangui J Sun; Jane A Driver; Emelia J Benjamin; Naomi M Hamburg; Gary F Mitchell; Ramachandran S Vasan; Joanne M Murabito Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Ariela R Orkaby; Rachel Ward; Jiaying Chen; Akshay Shanbhag; Howard D Sesso; J Michael Gaziano; Luc Djousse; Jane A Driver Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 6.591
Authors: Ariela R Orkaby; Lisa Nussbaum; Yuk-Lam Ho; David Gagnon; Lien Quach; Rachel Ward; Rachel Quaden; Enzo Yaksic; Kelly Harrington; Julie M Paik; Dae H Kim; Peter W Wilson; J Michael Gaziano; Luc Djousse; Kelly Cho; Jane A Driver Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2019-07-12 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Saket R Sanghai; Weisong Liu; Weijia Wang; Subendhu Rongali; Ariela R Orkaby; Jane S Saczynski; Adam J Rose; Alok Kapoor; Wenjun Li; Hong Yu; David D McManus Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Ariela R Orkaby; Rimma Dushkes; Rachel Ward; Luc Djousse; Julie E Buring; I-Min Lee; Nancy R Cook; Meryl S LeBoff; Olivia I Okereke; Trisha Copeland; JoAnn E Manson Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-09-01
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