1 / 14

James Nazroo Alan Marshall, Kris Mekli and Neil Pendleton neil.pendleton@manchester.ac.uk

Measuring Frailty A comparison of the frailty phenotype and frailty index for the prediction of all-cause mortality. James Nazroo Alan Marshall, Kris Mekli and Neil Pendleton neil.pendleton@manchester.ac.uk. Background. Specific definitions and models of frailty are contested

keegan
Download Presentation

James Nazroo Alan Marshall, Kris Mekli and Neil Pendleton neil.pendleton@manchester.ac.uk

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Measuring FrailtyA comparison of the frailty phenotype and frailty index for the prediction of all-cause mortality James Nazroo Alan Marshall, Kris Mekli and Neil Pendleton neil.pendleton@manchester.ac.uk

  2. Background • Specific definitions and models of frailty are contested • Broad agreement that frailty is a non-specific state reflecting age-related declines in multiple systems, which lead to adverse outcomes (mortality, hospitalisation) • Two common approaches to characterise frailty: • Frailty index (Rockwood and colleagues) • Frailty phenotype (Fried and colleagues) • Compare the two approaches and, in particular, their success in predicting all cause mortality • And how well do they perform compared with other markers of risk?

  3. The English Longitudinal Study of Ageing(www.ifs.org.uk/elsa) • A panel study of people aged 50 and older, recently finished our sixth wave of data collection, with additional wave 0 data available • Sample at wave 1 (2002) was approximately 11,400 people born before 1st March 1952 who were in the private household sector. Drawn from Health Survey for England (wave 0). • Face to face interview every two years since 2002, with a biomedical assessment carried out by a nurse every four years. • Those incapable of doing the interview have a proxy interview. • End of life interviews are carried out with the partners or carers of people who died after wave 1. • Detailed content on: demographics, health, performance, biomarkers, wellbeing, economics, housing, employment, social relationships, social civic and cultural participation, life history. • Sister study to HRS, SHARE, KLOSA, CHARLS, etc.

  4. Frailty Index (FI) • Based on accumulation of ‘deficits’ (from 30 items) • Activities of Daily Living • Cognitive function • Chronic diseases • CVD • Depression/mental health • Poor eyesight/hearing • Falls, fractures and joint replacements • 0-1 scale for each component • Calculate the proportion of deficits held (so 0-1 scale) • Can be divided into three categories • Robust (0-0.12) • Pre-frail (0.13-0.21) • Frail (>0.21)

  5. Frailty Phenotype (FP): Fried et al. 2001 • Aim: to establish a standardized definition of frailty • 5 items: • Sarcopenia: unintentional weight loss, > 8% bodyweight • Exhaustion: had both ‘everything they did was an effort’ and ‘could not get going much of the time’, during the past week • Low physical activity: no work and no other physical activities • Slowness: timed walk in the slowest 20% of population • Weakness: grip strength in the weakest 20% of population • Outcome • Robust phenotype: positive for 0 item • Pre-frail phenotype: positive for 1-2 items • Frail phenotype: positive for 3-5 items

  6. Analysis • Those aged sixty or older (walking speed) • Cumulative distribution of Frailty Index score for each Frailty Phenotype category (‘robust’, ‘pre-frail’ and ‘frail’) • Kaplan-Meier survival plots • Cox proportional hazard models • Test association between Frailty Index and Frailty Phenotype (at wave 2) and all cause mortality • Unadjusted model and then adjusted for demographics and then key risk factors (education, wealth, bmi, smoking) • Compare goodness of fit of models, and compare fit with models using self-assessed health and wealth

  7. Frailty index: distribution (wave 1) 0.21 used as a cut-off for dichotomous frailty variable 30% frail in wave 1

  8. Descriptives P value compares the survived and died groups (t-test and chi squared test)

  9. Frailty Index cumulative distribution by Frailty Phenotype Females Males Robust Robust Cumulative distribution Pre-frail Pre-frail Frail Frail Frailty index Frailty index

  10. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates - Males Frailty Index Frailty Phenotype Blue = Robust group. Red = Pre-frail group. Green = Frail group

  11. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates - females Frailty Index Frailty Phenotype Blue = Robust group. Red = Pre-frail group. Green = Frail group

  12. Cox survival model - results Model 1 controls for age and sex. Model 2 controls for age, sex, education, wealth, smoking, couple

  13. Cox survival model: Health and wealth Model 1 controls for age and sex. Model 2 controls for age, sex, education, (wealth), smoking, couple

  14. Conclusions • Prediction of mortality over an eight year period for older people (aged 60+) living in the community: • Comparable results for Frailty Index and Frailty Phenotype • Comparable results for self-assessed health and wealth • Choice of measure might reflect the particular setting • Frailty Phenotype advantageous in clinical setting: detailed longitudinal ‘diagnostic’ measure • Frailty index useful in community environment: checklist approach

More Related