Can We Distinguish Age-Related Frailty from Frailty Related to Diseases ? Data from the MAPT Study. Angioni D, et al, J Nutr Health Aging 2020.

  • Proposé le : 02/04/2021 16:07:03
  • Avec la version du site : v2021_01_12
  • Revu par :
    • Mettre votre nom d'utilisateur
    • Mettre votre nom d'utilisateur
Notes sur les tags :
  • Adopter cette revue :
    Si vous souhaitez prendre en charge cette revue d'article, merci de remplacer le tag Non_attribué par Attribué et ajoutez aussi votre nom d'utilisateur à l'emplacement prévu.
  • Réaliser des modifications :
    Pour modifier ce document, il est nécessaire d'être connecté au site. Pour cela, assurez-vous d'avoir des identifiants valides. Si vous n'en avez pas, contactez-nous. Pour vous connecter, cliquez sur l'icône dans la barre de navigation.
  • Demander la finalisation de la revue de l'article :
    Une fois revue et complétée, merci de remplacer l'étiquette Non_finalisé par A_finaliser. Un administrateur se chargera de valider la revue et de la publier avec le tag Finalisé.

Background: No study has tried to distinguish subjects that become frail due to diseases (frailty related to diseases) or in the absence of specific medical events; in this latter case, it is possible that aging process would act as the main frailty driver (age-related frailty).

Objectives: To classify subjects according to the origin of physical frailty: age-related frailty, frailty related to diseases, frailty of uncertain origin, and to compare their clinical characteristics. MATERIALS AND

Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of the Multidomain Alzheimer Preventive Trial (MAPT), including 195 subjects ≥70 years non-frail at baseline who became frail during a 5-year follow-up (mean age 77.8 years ± 4.7; 70% female). Physical frailty was defined as presenting ≥3 of the 5 Fried criteria: weight loss, exhaustion, weakness, slowness, low physical activity. Clinical files were independently reviewed by two different clinicians using a standardized assessment method in order to classify subjects as: "age-related frailty", "frailty related to diseases" or "frailty of uncertain origin". Inconsistencies among the two raters and cases of uncertain frailty were further assessed by two other experienced clinicians.

Results: From the 195 included subjects, 82 (42%) were classified as age-related frailty, 53 (27%) as frailty related to diseases, and 60 (31%) as frailty of uncertain origin. Patients who became frail due to diseases did not differ from the others groups in terms of functional, cognitive, psychological status and age at baseline, however they presented a higher burden of comorbidity as measured by the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) (8.20 ± 2.69; vs 6.22 ± 2.02 frailty of uncertain origin; vs. 3.25 ± 1.65 age-related frailty). Time to incident frailty (23.4 months ± 12.1 vs. 39.2 ± 19.3 months) and time spent in a pre-frailty condition (17.1 ± 11.4 vs 26.6 ± 16.6 months) were shorter in the group of frailty related to diseases compared to age-related frailty. Orthopedic diseases (n=14, 26%) were the most common pathologies leading to frailty related to diseases, followed by cardiovascular diseases (n=9, 17%) and neurological diseases (n = 8, 15%).

Conclusion: People classified as age-related frailty and frailty related to diseases presented different frailty-associated indicators. Future research should target the underlying biological cascades leading to these two frailty classifications, since they could ask for distinct strategies of prevention and management.

Références de l'article


Discussion

  • Cette section peut être éditée par les relecteurs, les rédacteurs, les modérateurs et les administrateurs. Elle regroupe l'ensemble des échanges autours de la référence ci-dessus présentée.
  • Référez-vous à cette page pour connaître le rôle des utilisateurs et pour participer à la discussion.
  • Il n'y a, pour l'instant, aucune discussion en cours.

Éditer la discussion



Gardez le contact

Suivez notre utilisateur Twitter : @AgingPapers
Nos rencontres visio