Trajectories of frailty with aging:Coordinated analysis of five longitudinal studies

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is an urgent need to better understand frailty and its predisposing factors. Although numerous cross-sectional studies have identified various risk and protective factors of frailty, there is a limited understanding of longitudinal frailty progression. Furthermore, discrepancies in the methodologies of these studies hamper comparability of results. Here, we use a coordinated analytical approach in 5 independent cohorts to evaluate longitudinal trajectories of frailty and the effect of 3 previously identified critical risk factors: sex, age, and education. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We derived a frailty index (FI) for 5 cohorts based on the accumulation of deficits approach. Four linear and quadratic growth curve models were fit in each cohort independently. Models were adjusted for sex/gender, age, years of education, and a sex/gender-by-age interaction term. RESULTS: Models describing linear progression of frailty best fit the data. Annual increases in FI ranged from 0.002 in the Invecchiare in Chianti cohort to 0.009 in the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (LASA). Women had consistently higher levels of frailty than men in all cohorts, ranging from an increase in the mean FI in women from 0.014 in the Health and Retirement Study cohort to 0.046 in the LASA cohort. However, the associations between sex/gender and rate of frailty progression were mixed. There was significant heterogeneity in within-person trajectories of frailty about the mean curves. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Our findings of linear longitudinal increases in frailty highlight important avenues for future research. Specifically, we encourage further research to identify potential effect modifiers or groups that would benefit from targeted or personalized interventions

Identifying dementia using medical data linkage in a longitudinal cohort study: Lothian Birth Cohort 1936

Abstract Background The Lothian Birth Cohort 1936 (LBC1936) is a longitudinal study of ageing with well-characterised assessments, but until now, it has relied on self-report or proxies for dementia such as cognitive tests. Our aims were twofold: a) to describe a framework for identifying dementia in a cohort study. b) to report the age-specific incidence and prevalence of all-cause dementia and dementia subtypes in 865 individuals in the LBC1936. Methods Electronic Health Records (EHR) of all participants were reviewed, and relevant information was extracted to form case vignettes for everyone with any record of cognitive dysfunction. The EHR data sources include hospital and clinic letters, general practitioner and hospital referrals, prescribed medications, imaging and laboratory results. Death certificate data were obtained separately. Clinician assessments were performed when there was concern about a participant's cognition. A diagnosis of probable dementia, possible dementia, or no dementia was agreed upon by a consensus diagnostic review board, comprised of a multidisciplinary team of clinical dementia experts who reviewed case vignettes and clinician assessment letters. For those with probable dementia, a subtype was also determined, where possible. We compared the agreement between our newly ascertained dementia diagnoses with the existing self-reported dementia diagnoses. Results Self-reported dementia diagnoses were positive in only 17.8% of ascertained dementia diagnoses. The EHR review identified 163/865 (18.8%) individuals as having cognitive dysfunction. At the consensus diagnostic review board, 118/163 were diagnosed with probable all-cause dementia, a prevalence of 13.6%. Age-specific dementia prevalence increased with age from 0.8% (65–74.9 years) to 9.93% (85–89.9 years). Prevalence rates for women were higher in nearly all age groups. The most common subtype was dementia due to Alzheimer disease (49.2%), followed by mixed Alzheimer and cerebrovascular disease (17.0%), dementia of unknown or unspecified cause (16.1%), and dementia due to vascular disease (8.5%). Conclusions We present a robust systematic framework and guide for other cohort teams wanting to ascertain dementia diagnoses. The newly ascertained dementia diagnosis provides vital data for further analyses of LBC1936 to allow exploration of lifecourse predictors of dementia

Trajectories of Frailty With Aging: Coordinated Analysis of Five Longitudinal Studies

Background and Objectives: There is an urgent need to better understand frailty and its predisposing factors. Although numerous cross-sectional studies have identified various risk and protective factors of frailty, there is a limited understanding of longitudinal frailty progression. Furthermore, discrepancies in the methodologies of these studies hamper comparability of results. Here, we use a coordinated analytical approach in 5 independent cohorts to evaluate longitudinal trajectories of frailty and the effect of 3 previously identified critical risk factors: sex, age, and education. Research Design and Methods: We derived a frailty index (FI) for 5 cohorts based on the accumulation of deficits approach. Four linear and quadratic growth curve models were fit in each cohort independently. Models were adjusted for sex/gender, age, years of education, and a sex/gender-by-age interaction term. Results: Models describing linear progression of frailty best fit the data. Annual increases in FI ranged from 0.002 in the Invecchiare in Chianti cohort to 0.009 in the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (LASA). Women had consistently higher levels of frailty than men in all cohorts, ranging from an increase in the mean FI in women from 0.014 in the Health and Retirement Study cohort to 0.046 in the LASA cohort. However, the associations between sex/gender and rate of frailty progression were mixed. There was significant heterogeneity in within-person trajectories of frailty about the mean curves. Discussion and Implications: Our findings of linear longitudinal increases in frailty highlight important avenues for future research. Specifically, we encourage further research to identify potential effect modifiers or groups that would benefit from targeted or personalized interventions

Trajectories of Frailty With Aging: Coordinated Analysis of Five Longitudinal Studies

Background and Objectives There is an urgent need to better understand frailty and its predisposing factors. Although numerous cross-sectional studies have identified various risk and protective factors of frailty, there is a limited understanding of longitudinal frailty progression. Furthermore, discrepancies in the methodologies of these studies hamper comparability of results. Here, we use a coordinated analytical approach in 5 independent cohorts to evaluate longitudinal trajectories of frailty and the effect of 3 previously identified critical risk factors: sex, age, and education. Research Design and Methods We derived a frailty index (FI) for 5 cohorts based on the accumulation of deficits approach. Four linear and quadratic growth curve models were fit in each cohort independently. Models were adjusted for sex/gender, age, years of education, and a sex/gender-by-age interaction term. Results Models describing linear progression of frailty best fit the data. Annual increases in FI ranged from 0.002 in the Invecchiare in Chianti cohort to 0.009 in the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (LASA). Women had consistently higher levels of frailty than men in all cohorts, ranging from an increase in the mean FI in women from 0.014 in the Health and Retirement Study cohort to 0.046 in the LASA cohort. However, the associations between sex/gender and rate of frailty progression were mixed. There was significant heterogeneity in within-person trajectories of frailty about the mean curves. Discussion and Implications Our findings of linear longitudinal increases in frailty highlight important avenues for future research. Specifically, we encourage further research to identify potential effect modifiers or groups that would benefit from targeted or personalized interventions