Mei-Ling Ge1, Michelle C Carlson2,3, Karen Bandeen-Roche3,4, Nadia M Chu5,6, Jing Tian4, Judith D Kasper7, Qian-Li Xue3,4,6,8. 1. The Center of Gerontology and Geriatrics (National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics), West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 2. Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 3. Center on Aging and Health, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 6. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 7. Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 8. Department of Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: To obtain national and regional estimates of prevalence of frailty with or without cognitive impairment, and cognitive impairment with or without frailty among older adults in the United States, and to identify profiles of characteristics that distinguish their joint versus separate occurrence. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Community or non-nursing home residential care settings. PARTICIPANTS: A U.S. nationally representative sample of 7,497 older adults aged 65 and older from the National Health and Aging Trends Study. MEASUREMENTS: Frailty was measured by the physical frailty phenotype. Cognitive impairment was assessed by cognitive performance testing of executive function and memory or by proxy reports. Multinomial logistic regression was used to identify profiles of demographic, socioeconomic, health, behavioral, and psychosocial characteristics that distinguish four subgroups: not-frail and cognitively intact ("neither"), not-frail and cognitively impaired ("Cog. only"), frail and cognitively intact ("frailty only"), and frail and cognitively impaired ("both"). RESULTS: The prevalence of "Cog. only," "frailty only," and "both" was 25.5%, 5.6%, and 8.7%, respectively. Individuals with"frailty only" had the highest prevalence of obesity, current smoking, comorbidity, lung disease, and history of surgery. The "both" group had the highest prevalence of dementia, depression, cardiovascular diseases, and disability. No significant differences were found between the "Cog. only" group and the "neither" group with respect to history of surgery and comorbidity burden. The prevalence of dementia in the "Cog. only" was less than half of that in the "both" group. CONCLUSION: The finding of sizable subgroups having physical frailty but not cognitive impairment, and vice versa, suggests that the two cannot be considered necessarily as antecedent or sequela of one another. The study provided empirical data supporting the prioritization of comorbidity, obesity, surgery history, and smoking status in clinical screening of frailty and cognitive impairment before formal diagnostic assessments.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: To obtain national and regional estimates of prevalence of frailty with or without cognitive impairment, and cognitive impairment with or without frailty among older adults in the United States, and to identify profiles of characteristics that distinguish their joint versus separate occurrence. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Community or non-nursing home residential care settings. PARTICIPANTS: A U.S. nationally representative sample of 7,497 older adults aged 65 and older from the National Health and Aging Trends Study. MEASUREMENTS: Frailty was measured by the physical frailty phenotype. Cognitive impairment was assessed by cognitive performance testing of executive function and memory or by proxy reports. Multinomial logistic regression was used to identify profiles of demographic, socioeconomic, health, behavioral, and psychosocial characteristics that distinguish four subgroups: not-frail and cognitively intact ("neither"), not-frail and cognitively impaired ("Cog. only"), frail and cognitively intact ("frailty only"), and frail and cognitively impaired ("both"). RESULTS: The prevalence of "Cog. only," "frailty only," and "both" was 25.5%, 5.6%, and 8.7%, respectively. Individuals with"frailty only" had the highest prevalence of obesity, current smoking, comorbidity, lung disease, and history of surgery. The "both" group had the highest prevalence of dementia, depression, cardiovascular diseases, and disability. No significant differences were found between the "Cog. only" group and the "neither" group with respect to history of surgery and comorbidity burden. The prevalence of dementia in the "Cog. only" was less than half of that in the "both" group. CONCLUSION: The finding of sizable subgroups having physical frailty but not cognitive impairment, and vice versa, suggests that the two cannot be considered necessarily as antecedent or sequela of one another. The study provided empirical data supporting the prioritization of comorbidity, obesity, surgery history, and smoking status in clinical screening of frailty and cognitive impairment before formal diagnostic assessments.
Authors: Maria Vassilaki; Jeremiah A Aakre; Ruth H Cha; Walter K Kremers; Jennifer L St Sauver; Michelle M Mielke; Yonas E Geda; Mary M Machulda; David S Knopman; Ronald C Petersen; Rosebud O Roberts Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 5.562
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: Matteo Cesari; Martin Prince; Jotheeswaran Amuthavalli Thiyagarajan; Islene Araujo De Carvalho; Roberto Bernabei; Piu Chan; Luis Miguel Gutierrez-Robledo; Jean-Pierre Michel; John E Morley; Paul Ong; Leocadio Rodriguez Manas; Alan Sinclair; Chang Won Won; John Beard; Bruno Vellas Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Brianne L Olivieri-Mui; Sandra M Shi; Ellen P McCarthy; Daniel Habtemariam; Dae H Kim Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-11-25 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Nadia M Chu; Qian-Li Xue; Mara A McAdams-DeMarco; Michelle C Carlson; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Alden L Gross Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2021-09-11 Impact factor: 12.782
Authors: Ece Kocagoncu; David Nesbitt; Tina Emery; Laura E Hughes; Richard N Henson; James B Rowe Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 6.709
Authors: Xingqi Cao; Chen Chen; Liu He; Zhoutao Zheng; Jingyun Zhang; Emiel O Hoogendijk; Xiaoting Liu; Shujuan Li; Xiaofeng Wang; Yimin Zhu; Zuyun Liu Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-02-24
Authors: Brian Buta; Ari B Friedman; Shang-En Chung; Orla C Sheehan; Marcela D Blinka; Susan L Gearhart; Qian-Li Xue Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2022-08-31 Impact factor: 4.070