Qian-Li Xue1,2, Jing Tian2,3, Jeremy D Walston1, Paulo H M Chaves4, Anne B Newman5, Karen Bandeen-Roche3. 1. Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. Center on Aging and Health, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. Benjamin Leon Jr. Family Center for Geriatric Research and Education, Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami. 5. Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the discordance in frailty classification between the frailty index (FI) and the physical frailty phenotype (PFP) and identify factors discriminating those with discordant frailty classification from each other and from those for whom the assessments agree. METHODS: A prospective observational study of older adults aged 65 and older selected from Medicare eligibility lists in four U.S. communities (n = 5,362). The PFP was measured by the Cardiovascular Health Study PFP. Participants meeting three or more of the five criteria were deemed frail. The FI was calculated as the proportion of deficits in an a priori selected set of 48 measures, and participants were classified as frail if FI is greater than 0.35. RESULTS: The prevalence of frailty was 7.0% by the PFP and 8.3% by the FI. Of the 730 deemed frail by either instrument, only 12% were in agreement, whereas 39% were classified as frail by the PFP, but not the FI, and 48% were classified as frail by the FI, but not the PFP. Participants aged 65-72 years or with greater disease burden were most likely to be characterized as being FI-frail, but not PFP-frail. The associations of frailty with age and mortality were stronger when frailty was measured by the PFP rather than the FI. CONCLUSIONS: Despite comparable frailty prevalence between the PFP and the FI, there was substantial discordance in individual-level classification, with highest agreement existing only in the most vulnerable subset. These findings suggest that there are clinically important contexts in which the PFP and the FI cannot be used interchangeably.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the discordance in frailty classification between the frailty index (FI) and the physical frailty phenotype (PFP) and identify factors discriminating those with discordant frailty classification from each other and from those for whom the assessments agree. METHODS: A prospective observational study of older adults aged 65 and older selected from Medicare eligibility lists in four U.S. communities (n = 5,362). The PFP was measured by the Cardiovascular Health Study PFP. Participants meeting three or more of the five criteria were deemed frail. The FI was calculated as the proportion of deficits in an a priori selected set of 48 measures, and participants were classified as frail if FI is greater than 0.35. RESULTS: The prevalence of frailty was 7.0% by the PFP and 8.3% by the FI. Of the 730 deemed frail by either instrument, only 12% were in agreement, whereas 39% were classified as frail by the PFP, but not the FI, and 48% were classified as frail by the FI, but not the PFP. Participants aged 65-72 years or with greater disease burden were most likely to be characterized as being FI-frail, but not PFP-frail. The associations of frailty with age and mortality were stronger when frailty was measured by the PFP rather than the FI. CONCLUSIONS: Despite comparable frailty prevalence between the PFP and the FI, there was substantial discordance in individual-level classification, with highest agreement existing only in the most vulnerable subset. These findings suggest that there are clinically important contexts in which the PFP and the FI cannot be used interchangeably.
Authors: A B Newman; J S Gottdiener; M A Mcburnie; C H Hirsch; W J Kop; R Tracy; J D Walston; L P Fried Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: L P Fried; N O Borhani; P Enright; C D Furberg; J M Gardin; R A Kronmal; L H Kuller; T A Manolio; M B Mittelmark; A Newman Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 1991-02 Impact factor: 3.797
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: Brian J Buta; Jeremy D Walston; Job G Godino; Minsun Park; Rita R Kalyani; Qian-Li Xue; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Ravi Varadhan Journal: Ageing Res Rev Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 10.895
Authors: Nathan E Brummel; Timothy D Girard; Pratik P Pandharipande; Jennifer L Thompson; Ryan T Jarrett; Rameela Raman; Christopher G Hughes; Mayur B Patel; Alessandro Morandi; Thomas M Gill; E Wesley Ely Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 9.296
Authors: Elizabeth C Lorenz; Cassie C Kennedy; Andrew D Rule; Nathan K LeBrasseur; James L Kirkland; LaTonya J Hickson Journal: Kidney Int Rep Date: 2021-06-09
Authors: François Béland; Dominic Julien; Christina Wolfson; Howard Bergman; Pierrette Gaudreau; Claude Galand; John Fletcher; Maria-Victoria Zunzunegui; Bryna Shatenstein; Marie-Jeanne Kergoat; José A Morais; Tamàs Fülöp Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 3.921