Abstract
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.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | igab059 |
Pages (from-to) | 1-11 |
Number of pages | 11 |
Journal | Innovation in Aging |
Volume | 6 |
Issue number | 2 |
Early online date | 15 Jan 2022 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2022 |
Bibliographical note
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America.Funding
This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (P01AG043362, R01AG067621) awarded to S. M. Hofer; the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research ZonMw-Veni fellowship (91618067) awarded to E. O. Hoogendijk; Age UK (MR/M01311/1) awarded to M. Welstead; the Halpin Trust awarded to J. M. Ranson and D. J. Llewellyn; Alzheimer’s Research UK awarded to J. M. Ranson and D. J. Llewellyn; Mary Kinross Charitable Trust awarded to D. J. Llewellyn; the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for the South West Peninsula awarded to D. J. Llewellyn; the National Institute on Aging/National Institutes of Health (RF1AG055654) awarded to D. J. Llewellyn; and the Alan Turing Institute under the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council grant (EP/N510129/1) awarded to D. J. Llewellyn.
Funders | Funder number |
---|---|
Halpin Trust | |
Mary Kinross Charitable Trust | |
Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research ZonMw-Veni | MR/M01311/1, 91618067 |
National Institutes of Health | R01AG067621, P01AG043362 |
National Institute on Aging | RF1AG055654 |
Alan Turing Institute | |
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council | EP/N510129/1 |
National Institute for Health and Care Research | |
Alzheimer’s Research UK |