Mark Q Thompson1, Solomon Yu2, Graeme R Tucker3, Robert J Adams4, Matteo Cesari5, Olga Theou6, Renuka Visvanathan2. 1. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Centre of Research Excellence: Frailty and Healthy Ageing, University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. Electronic address: mark.thompson@adelaide.edu.au. 2. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Centre of Research Excellence: Frailty and Healthy Ageing, University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; Adelaide Geriatrics Training & Research with Aged Care (G-TRAC) Centre, Adelaide Medical School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; Aged and Extended Care Services, Central Adelaide Local Health Network, South Australia, Australia. 3. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Centre of Research Excellence: Frailty and Healthy Ageing, University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. 4. Adelaide Institute for Sleep Health, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University of South Australia, South Australia, Australia; Respiratory and Sleep Services, Southern Adelaide Local Health Network, South Australia, Australia. 5. Geriatric Unit, IRCCS Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, University of Milan, Italy. 6. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Centre of Research Excellence: Frailty and Healthy Ageing, University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; School of Physiotherapy and Division of Geriatric Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frailty and sarcopenia are age-related conditions with shared features and are both associated with adverse health outcomes. Relatively little is known about outcomes of these conditions in combination. The aim of this study was to examine the predictive ability of combined frailty and sarcopenia classification on mortality. METHODS: Frailty was measured in 716 community-dwelling adults aged ≥65 years from the North West Adelaide Health Study (mean age 74.1(6.1) years, 55.5 % female) using the frailty phenotype (FP) and sarcopenia using the revised consensus definition from the European Working Group on Sarcopenia. Participants were classified as: neither frail nor sarcopenic, frail-only, sarcopenic-only, or both frail and sarcopenic. All participants had a minimum of 10 years of mortality follow-up. RESULTS: We identified 2.8 % of participants as both frail and sarcopenic, 15.5 % as frail-only, and 3.5 % as sarcopenic-only. Classification as both frail and sarcopenic, in a multivariable model, resulted in significantly elevated mortality risk (HR = 3.52, p < .001), which was over three times that of those neither frail nor sarcopenic. Frail-only was also a significant mortality predictor (HR = 2.03, p = .001), while classification as sarcopenic-only was not a significant predictor of mortality (HR = 1.65, p = .141). There was no significant difference in severity of frailty (mean number of characteristics) or grip strength between frail-only and those with both conditions when stratified by sex. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals identified as frail would benefit from screening and assessment for sarcopenia, and vice versa for those identified as sarcopenic, as the mortality risk for individuals with these conditions in combination is nearly double that of each separately.
BACKGROUND: Frailty and sarcopenia are age-related conditions with shared features and are both associated with adverse health outcomes. Relatively little is known about outcomes of these conditions in combination. The aim of this study was to examine the predictive ability of combined frailty and sarcopenia classification on mortality. METHODS: Frailty was measured in 716 community-dwelling adults aged ≥65 years from the North West Adelaide Health Study (mean age 74.1(6.1) years, 55.5 % female) using the frailty phenotype (FP) and sarcopenia using the revised consensus definition from the European Working Group on Sarcopenia. Participants were classified as: neither frail nor sarcopenic, frail-only, sarcopenic-only, or both frail and sarcopenic. All participants had a minimum of 10 years of mortality follow-up. RESULTS: We identified 2.8 % of participants as both frail and sarcopenic, 15.5 % as frail-only, and 3.5 % as sarcopenic-only. Classification as both frail and sarcopenic, in a multivariable model, resulted in significantly elevated mortality risk (HR = 3.52, p < .001), which was over three times that of those neither frail nor sarcopenic. Frail-only was also a significant mortality predictor (HR = 2.03, p = .001), while classification as sarcopenic-only was not a significant predictor of mortality (HR = 1.65, p = .141). There was no significant difference in severity of frailty (mean number of characteristics) or grip strength between frail-only and those with both conditions when stratified by sex. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals identified as frail would benefit from screening and assessment for sarcopenia, and vice versa for those identified as sarcopenic, as the mortality risk for individuals with these conditions in combination is nearly double that of each separately.
Authors: Alessio Montemurro; Juan D Ruiz-Cárdenas; María Del Mar Martínez-García; Juan J Rodríguez-Juan Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2022-08-11 Impact factor: 3.847