Emiel O Hoogendijk1, Kenneth Rockwood2, Olga Theou2, Joshua J Armstrong3, Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen4, Dorly J H Deeg1, Martijn Huisman1,5. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 3. Department of Health Sciences, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada. 4. Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Sociology, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
Background: to better understand the development of frailty with ageing requires longitudinal studies over an extended time period. Objective: to investigate changes in the degree of frailty during later life, and the extent to which changes are determined by socio-demographic characteristics. Methods: six measurement waves of 1,659 Dutch older adults aged 65 years and over in the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (LASA) yielded 5,211 observations over 17 years. At each wave, the degree of frailty was measured with a 32-item frailty index (FI), employing the deficit accumulation approach. Socio-demographic characteristics included age, sex, educational level and partner status. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) analyses were performed to study longitudinal frailty trajectories. Results: higher baseline FI scores were observed in older people, women, and those with lower education or without partner. The overall mean FI score at baseline was 0.17, and increased to 0.39 after 17 years. The average doubling time in the number of deficits was 12.6 years, and this was similar in those aged 65-74 years and those aged 75+. Partner status was associated with changes over time in FI score, whereas sex and educational level were not. Conclusions: this longitudinal study showed that the degree of frailty increased with ageing, faster than the age-related increase previously observed in cross-sectional studies. Even so, the rate of deficit accumulation was relatively stable during later life.
Background: to better understand the development of frailty with ageing requires longitudinal studies over an extended time period. Objective: to investigate changes in the degree of frailty during later life, and the extent to which changes are determined by socio-demographic characteristics. Methods: six measurement waves of 1,659 Dutch older adults aged 65 years and over in the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (LASA) yielded 5,211 observations over 17 years. At each wave, the degree of frailty was measured with a 32-item frailty index (FI), employing the deficit accumulation approach. Socio-demographic characteristics included age, sex, educational level and partner status. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) analyses were performed to study longitudinal frailty trajectories. Results: higher baseline FI scores were observed in older people, women, and those with lower education or without partner. The overall mean FI score at baseline was 0.17, and increased to 0.39 after 17 years. The average doubling time in the number of deficits was 12.6 years, and this was similar in those aged 65-74 years and those aged 75+. Partner status was associated with changes over time in FI score, whereas sex and educational level were not. Conclusions: this longitudinal study showed that the degree of frailty increased with ageing, faster than the age-related increase previously observed in cross-sectional studies. Even so, the rate of deficit accumulation was relatively stable during later life.
Authors: Olga Theou; Alexandra M van der Valk; Judith Godin; Melissa K Andrew; Janet E McElhaney; Shelly A McNeil; Kenneth Rockwood Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2020-09-25 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Felicia R Simpson; Nicholas M Pajewski; Barbara Nicklas; Stephen Kritchevsky; Alain Bertoni; Frank Ingram; Daniel Ojeranti; Mark A Espeland Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2020-09-25 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Emiel O Hoogendijk; Sari Stenholm; Luigi Ferrucci; Stefania Bandinelli; Marco Inzitari; Matteo Cesari Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2020-01-31 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: E Dent; J E Morley; A J Cruz-Jentoft; L Woodhouse; L Rodríguez-Mañas; L P Fried; J Woo; I Aprahamian; A Sanford; J Lundy; F Landi; J Beilby; F C Martin; J M Bauer; L Ferrucci; R A Merchant; B Dong; H Arai; E O Hoogendijk; C W Won; A Abbatecola; T Cederholm; T Strandberg; L M Gutiérrez Robledo; L Flicker; S Bhasin; M Aubertin-Leheudre; H A Bischoff-Ferrari; J M Guralnik; J Muscedere; M Pahor; J Ruiz; A M Negm; J Y Reginster; D L Waters; B Vellas Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2019 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Emiel O Hoogendijk; Annelot P Smit; Carmen van Dam; Noah A Schuster; Sascha de Breij; Tjalling J Holwerda; Martijn Huisman; Elsa Dent; Melissa K Andrew Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-07-23 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Emma Raymond; Chandra A Reynolds; Anna K Dahl Aslan; Deborah Finkel; Malin Ericsson; Sara Hägg; Nancy L Pedersen; Juulia Jylhävä Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2020-09-25 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Rachel E Ward; Ariela R Orkaby; Clark Dumontier; Brian Charest; Chelsea E Hawley; Enzo Yaksic; Lien Quach; Dae H Kim; David R Gagnon; J Michael Gaziano; Kelly Cho; Luc Djousse; Jane A Driver Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2021-10-13 Impact factor: 6.591