Assessing Risk for Adverse Outcomes in Older Adults: The Need to Include Both Physical Frailty and Cognition

Overview

Journal J Am Geriatr Soc

Specialty Geriatrics

Date 2018 Nov 24

PMID 30468258

Citations 46

Authors

Marlon J R Aliberti

Irena S Cenzer

Alexander K Smith

Sei J Lee

Kristine Yaffe

Kenneth E Covinsky

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Physical frailty is a powerful tool for identifying nondisabled individuals at high risk of adverse outcomes. The extent to which cognitive impairment in those without dementia adds value to physical frailty in detecting high-risk individuals remains unclear.

Objectives: To estimate the effects of combining physical frailty and cognitive impairment without dementia (CIND) on the risk of basic activities of daily living (ADL) dependence and death over 8 years.

Design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: The Health and Retirement Study (HRS).

Participants: A total of 7338 community-dwelling people, 65 years or older, without dementia and ADL dependence at baseline (2006-2008). Follow-up assessments occurred every 2 years until 2014.

Measurements: The five components of the Cardiovascular Health Study defined physical frailty. A well-validated HRS method, including verbal recall, series of subtractions, and backward count task, assessed cognition. Primary outcomes were time to ADL dependence and death. Hazard models, considering death as a competing risk, associated physical frailty and CIND with outcomes after adjusting for sociodemographics, comorbidities, depression, and smoking status.

Results: The prevalence of physical frailty was 15%; CIND, 19%; and both deficits, 5%. In unadjusted and adjusted analyses, combining these factors identified older adults at an escalating risk for ADL dependence (no deficit = 14% [reference group]; only CIND = 26%, sub-hazard ratio [sHR] = 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.3-1.8; only frail = 33%, sHR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.4-2.0; both deficits = 46%, sHR = 2.0, 95%CI = 1.6-2.6) and death (no deficit = 21%; only CIND = 41%, HR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.4-1.9; only frail = 56%, HR = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.7-2.7; both deficits = 66%, HR = 2.6, 95% CI = 2.0-3.3) over 8-year follow-up. Adding the cognitive measure to models that already included physical frailty alone increased accuracy in identifying those at higher risk of ADL dependence (Harrell's concordance [C], 0.74 vs 0.71; P < .001) and death (Harrell's C, 0.70 vs 0.67; P < .001).

Conclusion: Physical frailty and CIND are independent predictors of incident disability and death. Because together physical frailty and CIND identify vulnerable older adults better, optimal risk assessment should supplement measures of physical frailty with measures of cognitive function. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:477-483, 2019.

Citing Articles

Interocular retinal asymmetry and cognitive frailty: A prospective cohort study.

Lee Y, Hsieh Y, Huang T, Chiou J, Peng T, Liu Y Alzheimers Dement. 2024; 21(2):e14437.

PMID: 39711521 PMC: 11848388. DOI: 10.1002/alz.14437.

Cognitive frailty and functional disability in older adults: A 10-year prospective cohort study in Japan.

Chen S, Chen T, Honda T, Kishimoto H, Nofuji Y, Narazaki K Geroscience. 2024; .

PMID: 39627573 DOI: 10.1007/s11357-024-01461-0.

Telomere length and cognitive function among middle-aged and older participants from communities underrepresented in aging research: A preliminary study.

McLester-Davis L, Norton D, Papale L, James T, Salazar H, Asthana S bioRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 39464117 PMC: 11507781. DOI: 10.1101/2024.10.14.618331.

Genetic biomarkers of cognitive impairment and dementia of potential interest in CKD patients.

Zoccali C, Capasso G J Nephrol. 2024; 37(9):2473-2479.

PMID: 38970746 DOI: 10.1007/s40620-024-02006-6.

Social frailty as a predictor of all-cause mortality and functional disability: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Goto T, Kishimoto T, Fujiwara S, Shirayama Y, Ichikawa T Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):3410.

PMID: 38341512 PMC: 10858956. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-53984-3.

References

Fried L, Tangen C, Walston J, Newman A, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J . Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001; 56(3):M146-56. DOI: 10.1093/gerona/56.3.m146. View

Turvey C, Wallace R, Herzog R . A revised CES-D measure of depressive symptoms and a DSM-based measure of major depressive episodes in the elderly. Int Psychogeriatr. 2001; 11(2):139-48. DOI: 10.1017/s1041610299005694. View

Langa K, Plassman B, Wallace R, Herzog A, Heeringa S, Ofstedal M . The Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study: study design and methods. Neuroepidemiology. 2005; 25(4):181-91. DOI: 10.1159/000087448. View

Lee S, Lindquist K, Segal M, Covinsky K . Development and validation of a prognostic index for 4-year mortality in older adults. JAMA. 2006; 295(7):801-8. DOI: 10.1001/jama.295.7.801. View

Pencina M, DAgostino Sr R, DAgostino Jr R, Vasan R . Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med. 2007; 27(2):157-72. DOI: 10.1002/sim.2929. View

Rockwood K, Mitnitski A . Frailty in relation to the accumulation of deficits. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007; 62(7):722-7. DOI: 10.1093/gerona/62.7.722. View

Plassman B, Langa K, Fisher G, Heeringa S, Weir D, Ofstedal M . Prevalence of cognitive impairment without dementia in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2008; 148(6):427-34. PMC: 2670458. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-148-6-200803180-00005. View

Rothman M, Leo-Summers L, Gill T . Prognostic significance of potential frailty criteria. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008; 56(12):2211-16. PMC: 2782664. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02008.x. View

Avila-Funes J, Amieva H, Barberger-Gateau P, Le Goff M, Raoux N, Ritchie K . Cognitive impairment improves the predictive validity of the phenotype of frailty for adverse health outcomes: the three-city study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009; 57(3):453-61. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02136.x. View

10.

Cigolle C, Ofstedal M, Tian Z, Blaum C . Comparing models of frailty: the Health and Retirement Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009; 57(5):830-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02225.x. View

11.

Berry S, Ngo L, Samelson E, Kiel D . Competing risk of death: an important consideration in studies of older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010; 58(4):783-7. PMC: 2873048. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02767.x. View

12.

Gobbens R, van Assen M, Luijkx K, Wijnen-Sponselee M, Schols J . The Tilburg Frailty Indicator: psychometric properties. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2010; 11(5):344-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2009.11.003. View

13.

Crimmins E, Kim J, Langa K, Weir D . Assessment of cognition using surveys and neuropsychological assessment: the Health and Retirement Study and the Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2011; 66 Suppl 1:i162-71. PMC: 3165454. DOI: 10.1093/geronb/gbr048. View

14.

Sachs G, Carter R, Holtz L, Smith F, Stump T, Tu W . Cognitive impairment: an independent predictor of excess mortality: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155(5):300-8. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-5-201109060-00007. View

15.

Pencina M, DAgostino Sr R, Demler O . Novel metrics for evaluating improvement in discrimination: net reclassification and integrated discrimination improvement for normal variables and nested models. Stat Med. 2011; 31(2):101-13. PMC: 3341978. DOI: 10.1002/sim.4348. View

16.

Robertson D, Savva G, Kenny R . Frailty and cognitive impairment--a review of the evidence and causal mechanisms. Ageing Res Rev. 2013; 12(4):840-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.arr.2013.06.004. View

17.

Roberts R, Knopman D . Classification and epidemiology of MCI. Clin Geriatr Med. 2013; 29(4):753-72. PMC: 3821397. DOI: 10.1016/j.cger.2013.07.003. View

18.

Kelaiditi E, Cesari M, Canevelli M, Abellan van Kan G, Ousset P, Gillette-Guyonnet S . Cognitive frailty: rational and definition from an (I.A.N.A./I.A.G.G.) international consensus group. J Nutr Health Aging. 2013; 17(9):726-34. DOI: 10.1007/s12603-013-0367-2. View

19.

Dartigues J, Amieva H . Cognitive frailty: rational and definition from an (I.a.N.a./i.a.g.g.) international consensus group. J Nutr Health Aging. 2014; 18(1):95. DOI: 10.1007/s12603-013-0437-5. View

20.

Leening M, Vedder M, Witteman J, Pencina M, Steyerberg E . Net reclassification improvement: computation, interpretation, and controversies: a literature review and clinician's guide. Ann Intern Med. 2014; 160(2):122-31. DOI: 10.7326/M13-1522. View