An international Delphi consensus process to determine a common data element and core outcome set for frailty: FOCUS (The Frailty Outcomes Consensus Project)

BACKGROUND: Despite increased recognition of frailty and its importance, high quality evidence to guide decision-making is lacking. There has been variation in reported data elements and outcomes which makes it challenging to interpret results across studies as well as to generalize research findings. The creation of a frailty core set, consisting of a minimum set of data elements and outcomes to be measured in all frailty studies, would allow for findings from research and translational studies to be collectively analyzed to better inform care and decision-making. To achieve this, the Frailty Outcomes Consensus Project was developed to reach consensus from the international frailty community on a set of common data elements and core outcomes for frailty. METHODS: An international steering committee developed the methodology and the consensus process to be followed. The committee formulated the initial list of data elements and outcomes. Participants from across the world were invited to take part in the Delphi consensus process. The Delphi consisted of three rounds. Following review of data after three rounds, a final ranking round of data elements and outcomes was conducted. A required retention rate of 80% between rounds was set a priori. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-four panelists from 25 different countries participated in the first round of the Delphi consensus process. This included researchers, clinicians, administrators, older adults, and caregivers. The retention rate between rounds was achieved. Data elements and outcomes forming primary and secondary core sets were identified, within the domains of participant characteristics, physical performance, physical function, physical health, cognition and mental health, socioenvironmental circumstances, frailty measures, and other. CONCLUSION: It is anticipated that implementation and uptake of the frailty core set will enable studies to be collectively analyzed to better inform care for persons living with frailty and ultimately improve their outcomes. Future work will focus on identification of measurement tools to be used in the application of the frailty core set. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-022-02993-w

Metabolic syndrome across Europe: Different clusters of risk factors

BACKGROUND: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) remains a controversial entity. Specific clusters of MetS components - rather than MetS per se - are associated with accelerated arterial ageing and with cardiovascular (CV) events. To investigate whether the distribution of clusters of MetS components differed cross-culturally, we studied 34,821 subjects from 12 cohorts from 10 European countries and one cohort from the USA in the MARE (Metabolic syndrome and Arteries REsearch) Consortium. METHODS: In accordance with the ATP III criteria, MetS was defined as an alteration three or more of the following five components: elevated glucose (G), fasting glucose ≥110 mg/dl; low HDL cholesterol, < 40mg/dl for men or <50 mg/dl for women; high triglycerides (T), ≥150 mg/dl; elevated blood pressure (B), ≥130/≥85 mmHg; abdominal obesity (W), waist circumference >102 cm for men or >88 cm for women. RESULTS: MetS had a 24.3% prevalence (8468 subjects: 23.9% in men vs. 24.6% in women, p < 0.001) with an age-associated increase in its prevalence in all the cohorts. The age-adjusted prevalence of the clusters of MetS components previously associated with greater arterial and CV burden differed across countries (p < 0.0001) and in men and women (p < 0.0001). In details, the cluster TBW was observed in 12% of the subjects with MetS, but was far more common in the cohorts from the UK (32.3%), Sardinia in Italy (19.6%), and Germany (18.5%) and less prevalent in the cohorts from Sweden (1.2%), Spain (2.6%), and the USA (2.5%). The cluster GBW accounted for 12.7% of subjects with MetS with higher occurrence in Southern Europe (Italy, Spain, and Portugal: 31.4, 18.4, and 17.1% respectively) and in Belgium (20.4%), than in Northern Europe (Germany, Sweden, and Lithuania: 7.6, 9.4, and 9.6% respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of the distribution of MetS suggested that what follows under the common definition of MetS is not a unique entity rather a constellation of cluster of MetS components, likely selectively risky for CV disease, whose occurrence differs across countries

Preserving Mobility in Older Adults with Physical Frailty and Sarcopenia : Opportunities, Challenges, and Recommendations for Physical Activity Interventions

One of the most widely conserved hallmarks of aging is a decline in functional capabilities. Mobility loss is particularly burdensome due to its association with negative health outcomes, loss of independence and disability, and the heavy impact on quality of life. Recently, a new condition, physical frailty and sarcopenia, has been proposed to define a critical stage in the disabling cascade. Physical frailty and sarcopenia are characterized by weakness, slowness, and reduced muscle mass, yet with preserved ability to move independently. One of the strategies that have shown some benefits in combatting mobility loss and its consequences for older adults is physical activity. Here, we describe the opportunities and challenges for the development of physical activity interventions in people with physical frailty and sarcopenia. The aim of this article is to review age-related physio(patho)logical changes that impact mobility in old age and to provide recommendations and procedures in accordance with the available literature.Peer reviewe

European contribution to the study of ROS: A summary of the findings and prospects for the future from the COST action BM1203 (EU-ROS).

The European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) provides an ideal framework to establish multi-disciplinary research networks. COST Action BM1203 (EU-ROS) represents a consortium of researchers from different disciplines who are dedicated to providing new insights and tools for better understanding redox biology and medicine and, in the long run, to finding new therapeutic strategies to target dysregulated redox processes in various diseases. This report highlights the major achievements of EU-ROS as well as research updates and new perspectives arising from its members. The EU-ROS consortium comprised more than 140 active members who worked together for four years on the topics briefly described below. The formation of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species (RONS) is an established hallmark of our aerobic environment and metabolism but RONS also act as messengers via redox regulation of essential cellular processes. The fact that many diseases have been found to be associated with oxidative stress established the theory of oxidative stress as a trigger of diseases that can be corrected by antioxidant therapy. However, while experimental studies support this thesis, clinical studies still generate controversial results, due to complex pathophysiology of oxidative stress in humans. For future improvement of antioxidant therapy and better understanding of redox-associated disease progression detailed knowledge on the sources and targets of RONS formation and discrimination of their detrimental or beneficial roles is required. In order to advance this important area of biology and medicine, highly synergistic approaches combining a variety of diverse and contrasting disciplines are needed.The EU-ROS consortium (COST Action BM1203) was supported by the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST). The present overview represents the final Action dissemination summarizing the major achievements of COST Action BM1203 (EU-ROS) as well as research news and personal views of its members. Some authors were also supported by COST Actions BM1005 (ENOG) and BM1307 (PROTEOSTASIS), as well as funding from the European Commission FP7 and H2020 programmes, and several national funding agencies

Standardizing in vitro diagnostics tasks in clinical trials: a call for action

Translational research is defined as the process of applying ideas, insights and discoveries generated through basic scientific inquiry to treatment or prevention of human diseases. Although precise information is lacking, several lines of evidence attest that up to 95% early-phase studies may not translate into tangible outcomes for improving clinical management. Major theoretical hurdles exist in the translational process, but is it also undeniable that many studies may have failed for practical reasons, such as the use of inappropriate diagnostic testing for evaluating efficacy, effectiveness or safety of a given medical intervention, or poor quality in laboratory testing. This can generate biased test results and result in misconceptions during data interpretation, eventually leading to no clinical benefit, possible harm, and a waste of valuable resources. From a genuine economic perspective, it can be estimated that over 10 million euros of funding may be lost each year in clinical trials in the European Union due to preanalytical and analytical problems. These are mostly attributions to the heterogeneity of current guidelines and recommendations for the testing process, to the poor evidence base for basic preanalytical, analytical and post-analytical requirements in clinical trials, and to the failure to thoughtfully integrate the perspectives of clinicians, patients, nurses and diagnostic companies in laboratory best practices. The most rational means for filling the gap between what we know and what we practice in clinical trials cannot discount the development of multidisciplinary teams including research scientists, clinicians, nurses, patients associations and representative of in vitro diagnostic (IVD) companies, who should actively interplay and collaborate with laboratory professionals to adapt and disseminate evidence-based recommendations about biospecimen collection and management into the research settings, from preclinical to phase III studie

The ability of eight frailty instruments to identify adverse outcomes across different settings : the FRAILTOOLS project

BACKGROUND: To compare the performance of eight frailty instruments to identify relevant adverse outcomes for older people across different settings over a 12 month follow‐up. METHODS: Observational longitudinal prospective study of people aged 75 + years enrolled in different settings (acute geriatric wards, geriatric clinic, primary care clinics, and nursing homes) across five European cities. Frailty was assessed using the following: Frailty Phenotype, SHARE‐FI, 5‐item Frailty Trait Scale (FTS‐5), 3‐item FTS (FTS‐3), FRAIL scale, 35‐item Frailty Index (FI‐35), Gérontopôle Frailty Screening Tool, and Clinical Frailty Scale. Adverse outcomes ascertained at follow‐up were as follows: falls, hospitalization, increase in limitation in basic (BADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), and mortality. Sensitivity, specificity, and capacity to predict adverse outcomes in logistic regressions by each instrument above age, gender, and multimorbidity were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 996 individuals were followed (mean age 82.2 SD 5.5 years, 61.3% female). In geriatric wards, the FI‐35 (69.1%) and the FTS‐5 (67.9%) showed good sensitivity to predict death and good specificity to predict BADL worsening (70.3% and 69.8%, respectively). The FI‐35 also showed good sensitivity to predict BADL worsening (74.6%). In nursing homes, the FI‐35 and the FTSs predicted mortality and BADL worsening with a sensitivity > 73.9%. In geriatric clinic, the FI‐35, the FTS‐5, and the FRAIL scale obtained specificities > 85% to predict BADL worsening. No instrument achieved high enough sensitivity nor specificity in primary care. All the instruments predict the risk for all the outcomes in the whole sample after adjusting for age, gender, and multimorbidity. The associations of these instruments that remained significant by setting were for BADL worsening in geriatric wards [FI‐35 OR = 5.94 (2.69–13.14), FTS‐3 = 3.87 (1.76–8.48)], nursing homes [FI‐35 = 4.88 (1.54–15.44), FTS‐5 = 3.20 (1.61–6.38), FTS‐3 = 2.31 (1.27–4.21), FRAIL scale = 1.91 (1.05–3.48)], and geriatric clinic [FRAIL scale = 4.48 (1.73–11.58), FI‐35 = 3.30 (1.55–7.00)]; for IADL worsening in primary care [FTS‐5 = 3.99 (1.14–13.89)] and geriatric clinic [FI‐35 = 3.42 (1.56–7.49), FRAIL scale = 3.27 (1.21–8.86)]; for hospitalizations in primary care [FI‐35 = 3.04 (1.25–7.39)]; and for falls in geriatric clinic [FI‐35 = 2.21 (1.01–4.84)]. CONCLUSIONS: No single assessment instrument performs the best for all settings and outcomes. While in inpatients several commonly used frailty instruments showed good sensitivities (mainly for mortality and BADL worsening) but usually poor specificities, the contrary happened in geriatric clinic. None of the instruments showed a good performance in primary care. The FI‐35 and the FTS‐5 showed the best profile among the instruments assessed

Differential utility of various frailty diagnostic tools in non-geriatric hospital departments of several countries: A longitudinal study

Background: There is limited knowledge on the performance of different frailty scales in clinical settings. We sought to evaluate in non-geriatric hospital departments the feasibility, agreement and predictive ability for adverse events after 1 year follow-up of several frailty assessment tools.Methods: Longitudinal study with 667 older adults recruited from five hospitals in three different countries (Spain, Italy and United Kingdom). Participants were older than 75 years attending the emergency room, cardiology and surgery departments. Frailty scales used were Frailty Phenotype (FP), FRAIL scale, Tilburg and Groningen Frailty Indicators, and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). Analyses included the prevalence of frailty, degree of agreement between tools, feasibility and prognostic value for hospital readmission, worsening of disability and mortality, by tool and setting.Results: Emergency Room and cardiology were the settings with the highest frailty prevalence, varying by tool between 40.4% and 67.2%; elective surgery was the one with the lowest prevalence (between 13.2% and 38.2%). The tools showed a fair to moderate agreement. FP showed the lowest feasibility, especially in urgent surgery (35.6%). FRAIL, CFS and FP predicted mortality and readmissions in several settings, but disability worsening only in cardiology.Conclusions: Frailty is a highly frequent condition in older people attending non-geriatric hospital departments. We recommend that based upon their current feasibility and predictive ability, the FRAIL scale, CFS and FP should be preferentially used in these settings. The low concordance among the tools and differences in prevalence reported and predictive ability suggest the existence of different subtypes of frailty

Higher sRAGE levels predict mortality in frail older adults with cardiovascular disease

Introduction: The evidence that blood levels of the soluble receptor for advanced glycation end products (sRAGE) predict mortality in people with cardiovascular diseases (CVD) is inconsistent. To clarify this matter, we investigated if frailty status influences this association. Methods: We analysed data of 1016 individuals (median age, 75 years) from three population-based European cohorts, enrolled in the FRAILOMIC project. Participants were stratified by history of CVD and frailty status. Mortality was recorded during 8 years of follow-up. Results: In adjusted Cox regression models baseline serum sRAGE was positively associated with an increased risk of mortality in participants with CVD (HR 1.64, 95%CI 1.09-2.49, P=0.019), but not in non-CVD. Within the CVD group, the risk of death was markedly enhanced in the frail subgroup (CVD-F, HR 1.97, 95%CI 1.18- 3.29, P=0.009), compared to the non-frail subgroup (CVD-NF, HR 1.50, 95%CI 0.71- 3.15, P=0.287). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the median survival time of CVDF with high sRAGE (>1554 pg/mL) was 2.9 years shorter than that of CVD-F with low sRAGE, whereas no survival difference was seen for CVD-NF. Area under the ROC curve analysis demonstrated that for CVD-F, addition of sRAGE to the prediction model increased its prognostic value. Conclusions: Frailty status influences the relationship between sRAGE and mortality in older adults with CVD. sRAGE could be used as a prognostic marker of mortality for these individuals, particularly if they are also frail