Laboratoire VieSanté - UR 24134 (Vieillissement, Fragilité, Prévention, e-Santé), Institut Omega Health, Université de Limoges, Limoges, France; CHU de Limoges, Pôle HU Gérontologie Clinique, F-87042 Limoges, 2 Avenue Martin-Luther King, France; Unité de Recherche Clinique et d'Innovation (URCI) de Gérontologie, CHU de Limoges, Pôle HU Gérontologie Clinique, Limoges, France.
Laboratoire VieSanté - UR 24134 (Vieillissement, Fragilité, Prévention, e-Santé), Institut Omega Health, Université de Limoges, Limoges, France; CHU de Limoges, Pôle HU Gérontologie Clinique, F-87042 Limoges, 2 Avenue Martin-Luther King, France.
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2023 Nov;114:105101. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2023.105101. Epub 2023 Jun 8.
To identify subgroups of people with distinct frailty trajectories, identify baseline characteristics associated with these trajectories, and determine their coincident clinical outcomes.
This study examined the longitudinal database from the FREEDOM Cohort Study.
All 497 participants of the FREEDOM (French Acronym for "FRagilitéEtEvaluation àDOMicile" / In English "Frailty and Evaluation at Home") cohort requested a comprehensive geriatric assessment. Community-dwelling subjects over 75 years, or over 65 years with at least two comorbidities were included.
Frailty was assessed using Fried's criteria, depression using the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) and cognitive function using the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) questionnaire. Frailty trajectories were modelled using k-means algorithms. Predictive factors were determined by multivariate logistic regression. Clinical outcomes included incident cognitive deficit, falls and hospitalization.
The trajectory models allowed determine four frailty trajectories: "robust stable" (Trajectory A, 26.8%), "pre-frail worsening to frailty" (Trajectory B, 35.8%), "frail improving to less frailty" (Trajectory C, 23.3%), and "frail worsening to more frailty" (Trajectory D, 14.1%). Trajectory B was associated with age (OR 1.2 (95CI, 1.05 - 1.17)), potential cognitive deficit/dementia (OR 2.01 (95CI, 1.01- 4.05)) and depressive symptoms (OR 2.36 (95CI, 1.36 - 4.12)). Hypertension was distinguishing factor between" trajectory B vs. C and D. Depressive symptoms were two time more associated with D (OR 10.51) vs. C (OR 4.55). The incidence of clinical outcomes was significantly increased in poor frailty trajectories.
This study allowed to determine frailty trajectories among older subjects requested a comprehensive geriatric assessment. The more significant predictive factors associated with poor frailty trajectory were advanced in age, potential cognitive deficit/dementia, depressive symptoms and hypertension. This emphasizes the need for adequate measures to controlled hypertension, depressive symptoms and to maintain or improve cognition in older adults.
确定具有不同脆弱轨迹的人群亚组,确定与这些轨迹相关的基线特征,并确定其同时发生的临床结局。
本研究检查了 FREEDOM 队列研究的纵向数据库。
所有 497 名 FREEDOM(法语为“FRagilitéEtEvaluation àDOMicile”/英文为“Frailty and Evaluation at Home”)队列的参与者都要求进行全面的老年评估。包括 75 岁以上的社区居住者,或 65 岁以上且至少有两种合并症的人。
使用 Fried 的标准评估脆弱性,使用老年抑郁量表(GDS)评估抑郁,使用简易精神状态检查(MMSE)问卷评估认知功能。使用 k-均值算法对脆弱性轨迹进行建模。通过多变量逻辑回归确定预测因素。临床结局包括认知功能减退、跌倒和住院。
轨迹模型确定了四种脆弱性轨迹:“稳定强健”(轨迹 A,26.8%)、“从脆弱前期恶化到脆弱”(轨迹 B,35.8%)、“从脆弱改善到不那么脆弱”(轨迹 C,23.3%)和“从脆弱恶化到更脆弱”(轨迹 D,14.1%)。轨迹 B 与年龄(OR 1.2(95CI,1.05-1.17))、潜在认知缺陷/痴呆(OR 2.01(95CI,1.01-4.05))和抑郁症状(OR 2.36(95CI,1.36-4.12))有关。高血压是区分“轨迹 B 与 C 和 D”的因素。抑郁症状与 D(OR 10.51)相比与 C(OR 4.55)更相关。临床结局的发生率在脆弱性较差的轨迹中显著增加。
本研究确定了请求全面老年评估的老年患者的脆弱性轨迹。与脆弱性较差轨迹相关的更显著的预测因素是年龄较大、潜在认知缺陷/痴呆、抑郁症状和高血压。这强调了需要采取适当措施控制高血压、抑郁症状,并在老年人中保持或改善认知功能。