Varshini Varadaraj1, Moon Jeong Lee1, Jing Tian2, Pradeep Y Ramulu1, Karen Bandeen-Roche2, Bonnielin K Swenor3. 1. Wilmer Eye Institute, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 3. Wilmer Eye Institute, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Electronic address: bswenor@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine associations between near vision impairment (NVI) and frailty. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Setting: Nationally representative sample of noninstitutionalized United States civilians. STUDY POPULATION: Total of 2705 older adults aged ≥60 years from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999-2002). OBSERVATION: Presenting NVI (PNVI): near acuity worse than 20/40. Self-reported NVI (SNVI): self-reported difficulty with near vision tasks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Five-item physical frailty index; participants classified as frail (≥3 criteria) and prefrail (1 or 2 criteria). Propensity score-adjusted and probability-weighted multinomial multivariable logistic regression was used to examine associations of PNVI and SNVI with frailty. RESULTS: Of 2705 participants, 381 (10%), 160 (5%), and 106 (3%) had PNVI only, SNVI only, and PNVI+SNVI, respectively. In fully adjusted models, as compared to those without PNVI, participants with PNVI were more likely to be prefrail (odds ratio [OR] = 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1, 2.3) and frail (OR = 2.5; 95% CI = 1.4, 4.3). As compared to those without SNVI, participants with SNVI were more likely to be prefrail (OR = 2.9; 95% CI = 1.8, 4.7) and frail (OR = 4.3; 95% CI = 2.2, 8.3). As compared to those without PNVI or SNVI, participants with PNVI+SNVI were more likely to be prefrail and frail (prefrail: OR = 4.0; 95% CI = 2.2, 7.2 and frail: OR = 4.5; 95% CI = 1.7,12.7). CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with PNVI and SNVI were more likely to be prefrail and frail than those without respective NVI, suggesting that NVI is associated with frailty.
PURPOSE: To examine associations between near vision impairment (NVI) and frailty. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Setting: Nationally representative sample of noninstitutionalized United States civilians. STUDY POPULATION: Total of 2705 older adults aged ≥60 years from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999-2002). OBSERVATION: Presenting NVI (PNVI): near acuity worse than 20/40. Self-reported NVI (SNVI): self-reported difficulty with near vision tasks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Five-item physical frailty index; participants classified as frail (≥3 criteria) and prefrail (1 or 2 criteria). Propensity score-adjusted and probability-weighted multinomial multivariable logistic regression was used to examine associations of PNVI and SNVI with frailty. RESULTS: Of 2705 participants, 381 (10%), 160 (5%), and 106 (3%) had PNVI only, SNVI only, and PNVI+SNVI, respectively. In fully adjusted models, as compared to those without PNVI, participants with PNVI were more likely to be prefrail (odds ratio [OR] = 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1, 2.3) and frail (OR = 2.5; 95% CI = 1.4, 4.3). As compared to those without SNVI, participants with SNVI were more likely to be prefrail (OR = 2.9; 95% CI = 1.8, 4.7) and frail (OR = 4.3; 95% CI = 2.2, 8.3). As compared to those without PNVI or SNVI, participants with PNVI+SNVI were more likely to be prefrail and frail (prefrail: OR = 4.0; 95% CI = 2.2, 7.2 and frail: OR = 4.5; 95% CI = 1.7,12.7). CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with PNVI and SNVI were more likely to be prefrail and frail than those without respective NVI, suggesting that NVI is associated with frailty.
Authors: Cynthia Owsley; Gerald McGwin; Kay Scilley; Christopher A Girkin; Janice M Phillips; Karen Searcey Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Mingguang He; Amza Abdou; Kovin S Naidoo; Yuddha D Sapkota; R D Thulasiraj; Rohit Varma; Jialiang Zhao; Leon B Ellwein Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2012-04-24 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Varshini Varadaraj; Kevin D Frick; Jinan B Saaddine; David S Friedman; Bonnielin K Swenor Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: V Soler; S Sourdet; L Balardy; G Abellan van Kan; D Brechemier; M E Rougé-Bugat; N Tavassoli; M Cassagne; F Malecaze; F Nourhashémi; B Vellas Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2016 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Xinxing Guo; Lubaina T Arsiwala; Yanan Dong; Aleksandra Mihailovic; Pradeep Y Ramulu; A Richey Sharrett; Thomas Mosley; Alison G Abraham Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 3.283