Chew J, Lim J P, Yew S, Yeo A, Ismail N H, Ding Y Y, Lim W S
Justin Chew, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore,
J Nutr Health Aging. 2021;25(9):1112-1118. doi: 10.1007/s12603-021-1679-2.
Frailty and intrinsic capacity (IC) are distinct but interrelated constructs. Uncertainty remains regarding how they are related and interact to influence health outcomes. We aim to understand the relationship between frailty and IC by identifying subgroups based on frailty criteria and IC domains and studying one-year outcomes.
We studied 200 independent community-dwelling older adults (mean age 67.9±7.9 years, Modified Barthel Index (MBI) score 99±2.6). Frailty was defined by modified Fried criteria. Scores (range: 0-2) were assigned to individual IC domains (cognition, psychological, locomotion, and vitality) to yield a total IC score of 8. To identify subgroups, two-step cluster analysis was performed with age, frailty and IC domains. Cluster associations with one-year outcomes (frailty, muscle strength (grip strength, repeated chair stand test), physical performance (gait speed, Short Physical Performance Battery), function (MBI) and quality-of-life (EuroQol (EQ)-5D)) were examined using multiple linear regression adjusted for age, gender and education.
Three distinct clusters were identified - Cluster 1: High IC/Robust (N=74, 37%); Cluster 2: Intermediate IC/Prefrail (N=73, 36.5%); and Cluster 3: Low IC/Prefrail-Frail (53, 26.5%). Comparing between clusters, IC domains, cognition, depressive symptoms, nutrition, strength and physical performance were least impaired in Cluster 1, intermediate in Cluster 2 and most impaired in Cluster 3. At one year, the proportion transitioning to frailty or remaining frail was highest in Cluster 3 compared to Cluster 2 and Cluster 1 (39% vs 6.9% vs 2.8%, P<0.001). Compared to Cluster 1, Cluster 3 experienced greatest declines in grip strength (β=-4.1, P<.001), MBI (β=-1.24, P=0.045) and EQ-5D utility scores (β=-0.053, P=0.005), with Cluster 2 intermediate between Cluster 1 and Cluster 3.
Amongst independent community-dwelling older adults, IC is complementary to frailty measures through better risk-profiling of one-year outcomes amongst prefrail individuals into intermediate and high-risk groups. The intermediate group merits follow-up to ascertain longer-term prognosis.
衰弱和内在能力(IC)是不同但相互关联的概念。关于它们如何相互关联并相互作用以影响健康结果仍存在不确定性。我们旨在通过根据衰弱标准和IC领域确定亚组并研究一年的结果来了解衰弱与IC之间的关系。
我们研究了200名独立生活在社区的老年人(平均年龄67.9±7.9岁,改良巴氏指数(MBI)评分99±2.6)。衰弱由改良的Fried标准定义。为各个IC领域(认知、心理、运动和活力)分配分数(范围:0 - 2),以得出IC总分为8分。为了确定亚组,对年龄、衰弱和IC领域进行了两步聚类分析。使用针对年龄、性别和教育程度进行调整的多元线性回归,研究聚类与一年结果(衰弱、肌肉力量(握力、重复椅子站立测试)、身体表现(步速、简短身体表现量表)、功能(MBI)和生活质量(欧洲生活质量量表(EQ)-5D))之间的关联。
确定了三个不同的聚类 - 聚类1:高IC/强健(N = 74,37%);聚类2:中等IC/衰弱前期(N = 73,36.5%);聚类3:低IC/衰弱前期 - 衰弱(53,26.5%)。在聚类之间进行比较,IC领域、认知、抑郁症状、营养、力量和身体表现在聚类1中受损最少,在聚类2中处于中等水平,在聚类3中受损最严重。在一年时,与聚类2和聚类1相比,聚类3中转变为衰弱或仍处于衰弱状态的比例最高(39%对6.9%对2.8%,P < 0.001)。与聚类1相比,聚类3的握力(β = -4.1,P <.001)、MBI(β = -1.24,P = 0.045)和EQ - 5D效用评分(β = -0.053,P = 0.005)下降最大,聚类2介于聚类1和聚类3之间。
在独立生活在社区的老年人中,IC通过更好地对衰弱前期个体的一年结果进行风险分层,将其分为中、高风险组,从而补充了衰弱测量方法。中间组值得进行随访以确定长期预后。