Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
BMJ Open. 2023 Jun 2;13(6):e066848. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066848.
Handgrip strength and physical activity are commonly used to evaluate physical frailty; however, their distribution varies worldwide. The thresholds that identify frail individuals have been established in high-income countries but not in low-income and middle-income countries. We created two adaptations of physical frailty to study how global versus regional thresholds for handgrip strength and physical activity affect frailty prevalence and its association with mortality in a multinational population.
DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Our sample included 137 499 adults aged 35-70 years (median age: 61 years, 60% women) from Population Urban Rural Epidemiology Studies community-dwelling prospective cohort across 25 countries, covering the following geographical regions: China, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Africa, Russia and Central Asia, North America/Europe, Middle East and South America.
We measured and compared frailty prevalence and time to all-cause mortality for two adaptations of frailty.
Overall frailty prevalence was 5.6% using and 5.8% using . Global frailty prevalence ranged from 2.4% (North America/Europe) to 20.1% (Africa), while regional frailty ranged from 4.1% (Russia/Central Asia) to 8.8% (Middle East). The HRs for all-cause mortality (median follow-up of 9 years) were 2.42 (95% CI: 2.25 to 2.60) and 1.91 (95% CI: 1.77 to 2.06) using and respectively, (adjusted for age, sex, education, smoking status, alcohol consumption and morbidity count). Receiver operating characteristic curves for all-cause mortality were generated for both frailty adaptations. yielded an area under the curve of 0.600 (95% CI: 0.594 to 0.606), compared with 0.5933 (95% CI: 0.587 to 5.99) for (p=0.0007).
leads to higher regional variations in estimated frailty prevalence and stronger associations with mortality, as compared with regional frailty. However, both frailty adaptations in isolation are limited in their ability to discriminate between those who will die during 9 years' follow-up from those who do not.
握力和身体活动常用于评估身体虚弱程度;然而,它们在全球的分布情况有所不同。高收入国家已经确定了识别虚弱个体的阈值,但在低收入和中等收入国家尚未确定。我们创建了两种身体虚弱的适应方法,以研究全球和区域握力和身体活动阈值如何影响多民族人群中虚弱的流行程度及其与死亡率的关联。
设计、地点和参与者:我们的样本包括来自 25 个国家的人口城乡流行病学研究社区居住前瞻性队列中的 137499 名 35-70 岁成年人(中位年龄:61 岁,60%为女性),涵盖以下地理区域:中国、南亚、东南亚、非洲、俄罗斯和中亚、北美/欧洲、中东和南美洲。
我们测量并比较了两种虚弱适应方法的虚弱流行程度和全因死亡率。
使用 和 ,总体虚弱流行率分别为 5.6%和 5.8%。全球虚弱流行率范围从 2.4%(北美/欧洲)到 20.1%(非洲),而区域虚弱流行率范围从 4.1%(俄罗斯/中亚)到 8.8%(中东)。全因死亡率的 HR(中位随访 9 年)分别为 2.42(95%CI:2.25 至 2.60)和 1.91(95%CI:1.77 至 2.06)使用 和 ,(调整年龄、性别、教育程度、吸烟状况、饮酒状况和发病数)。为两种虚弱适应方法生成了全因死亡率的受试者工作特征曲线。对于所有原因的死亡率, 产生的曲线下面积为 0.600(95%CI:0.594 至 0.606),而 为 0.5933(95%CI:0.587 至 0.599)(p=0.0007)。
与区域虚弱相比, 导致估计虚弱流行率的区域差异更大,与死亡率的关联更强。然而,两种虚弱适应方法单独使用时,在区分 9 年随访期间死亡和未死亡的个体方面均存在局限性。