Joanna M Blodgett1, Mario U Pérez-Zepeda1,2,3, Judith Godin1, D Scott Kehler1,4, Melissa K Andrew1, Susan Kirkland1,5, Kenneth Rockwood1, Olga Theou1,4. 1. Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 2. Instituto Nacional de Geriatria, Mexico City, Mexico. 3. Centro de Investigacion en Ciencias de la Salud (CICSA), FCS, Universidad Anáhuac Mexico Campus Norte, Huixquilucan Mexico. 4. School of Physiotherapy, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 5. Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frailty can be operationalised using the deficit accumulation approach, which considers health deficits across multiple domains. We aimed to develop, validate and compare three different frailty indices (FI) constructed from self-reported health measures (FI-Self Report), blood-based biomarkers (FI-Blood) and examination-based assessments (FI-Examination). METHODS: Up to 30,027 participants aged 45-85 years from the baseline (2011-2015) comprehensive cohort of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging were included in the analyses. Following standard criteria, three FIs were created: a 48-item FI-Self Report, a 23-item FI-Blood and a 47-item FI-Examination. In addition a 118-item FI-Combined was constructed. Mortality status was ascertained in July 2019. RESULTS: FI-Blood and FI-Examination demonstrated broader distributions than FI-Self Report. FI-Self Report and FI-Blood scores were higher in females, whereas FI-Examination scores were higher in males. All FI scores increased nonlinearly with age and were highest at lower education levels. In sex and age-adjusted models, a 0.01 increase in FI score was associated with a 1.08 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07,1.10], 1.05 (1.04,1.06), 1.07 (1.05,1.08) and a 1.13 (1.11,1.16) increased odds of mortality for FI-Self Report, FI-Blood, FI-Examination and FI-Combined, respectively. Inclusion of the three distinct FI types in a single model yielded the best prognostic accuracy and model fit, even compared to the FI-Combined, with all FIs remaining independently associated with mortality. CONCLUSION: Characteristics of all FIs were largely consistent with previously established FIs. To adequately capture frailty levels and to improve our understanding of the heterogeneity of ageing, FIs should consider multiple types of deficits including self-reported, blood and examination-based measures.
BACKGROUND: Frailty can be operationalised using the deficit accumulation approach, which considers health deficits across multiple domains. We aimed to develop, validate and compare three different frailty indices (FI) constructed from self-reported health measures (FI-Self Report), blood-based biomarkers (FI-Blood) and examination-based assessments (FI-Examination). METHODS: Up to 30,027 participants aged 45-85 years from the baseline (2011-2015) comprehensive cohort of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging were included in the analyses. Following standard criteria, three FIs were created: a 48-item FI-Self Report, a 23-item FI-Blood and a 47-item FI-Examination. In addition a 118-item FI-Combined was constructed. Mortality status was ascertained in July 2019. RESULTS: FI-Blood and FI-Examination demonstrated broader distributions than FI-Self Report. FI-Self Report and FI-Blood scores were higher in females, whereas FI-Examination scores were higher in males. All FI scores increased nonlinearly with age and were highest at lower education levels. In sex and age-adjusted models, a 0.01 increase in FI score was associated with a 1.08 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07,1.10], 1.05 (1.04,1.06), 1.07 (1.05,1.08) and a 1.13 (1.11,1.16) increased odds of mortality for FI-Self Report, FI-Blood, FI-Examination and FI-Combined, respectively. Inclusion of the three distinct FI types in a single model yielded the best prognostic accuracy and model fit, even compared to the FI-Combined, with all FIs remaining independently associated with mortality. CONCLUSION: Characteristics of all FIs were largely consistent with previously established FIs. To adequately capture frailty levels and to improve our understanding of the heterogeneity of ageing, FIs should consider multiple types of deficits including self-reported, blood and examination-based measures.
Authors: Kenneth Rockwood; Xiaowei Song; Chris MacKnight; Howard Bergman; David B Hogan; Ian McDowell; Arnold Mitnitski Journal: CMAJ Date: 2005-08-30 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Samantha J Norberg; Ann M Toohey; Sian Jones; Raynell McDonough; David B Hogan Journal: Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Parminder Raina; Christina Wolfson; Susan Kirkland; Lauren E Griffith; Cynthia Balion; Benoȋt Cossette; Isabelle Dionne; Scott Hofer; David Hogan; E R van den Heuvel; Teresa Liu-Ambrose; Verena Menec; Gerald Mugford; Christopher Patterson; Hélène Payette; Brent Richards; Harry Shannon; Debra Sheets; Vanessa Taler; Mary Thompson; Holly Tuokko; Andrew Wister; Changbao Wu; Lynne Young Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2019-09-06 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Andrew Clegg; Chris Bates; John Young; Ronan Ryan; Linda Nichols; Elizabeth Ann Teale; Mohammed A Mohammed; John Parry; Tom Marshall Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2016-03-03 Impact factor: 10.668