Hinda and Arthur Marcus Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2024 Jul 1;79(7). doi: 10.1093/gerona/glae094.
The relationship of claims-based frailty index (CFI), a validated measure to identify frail individuals using Medicare data, and frailty measures used in clinical practice has not yet been fully explored.
We identified community-dwelling participants of the 2015 National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) whose CFI scores could be calculated using linked Medicare claims. We calculated 9 commonly used clinical frailty measures from their NHATS in-person examination: Study of Osteoporotic Fracture Index (SOF), FRAIL Scale, Frailty Phenotype, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Vulnerable Elder Survey-13 (VES-13), Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS), and 40-item Frailty Index (FI). Using equipercentile method, CFI scores were linked to clinical frailty measures. C-statistics and test characteristics of CFI to identify frailty as defined by each clinical frailty measure were calculated.
Of the 3 963 older adults, 44.5% were ≥75 years, 59.4% were female, and 82.3% were non-Hispanic White. A CFI of 0.25 was equipercentile to the following clinical frailty measure scores: SOF 1.4, FRAIL 1.8, Phenotype 1.8, CFS 5.4, VES-13 5.7, TFI 4.6, GFI 5.0, EFS 6.0, and FI 0.26. The C-statistics of using CFI to identify frailty as defined by each clinical measure were ≥0.70, except for CFS and VES-13. The optimal CFI cutpoints to identify frailty per clinical frailty measure ranged from 0.212 to 0.242, with sensitivity and specificity of 0.37-0.83 and 0.66-0.84, respectively.
Understanding the relationship of CFI and commonly used clinical frailty measures can enhance the interpretability and potential utility of CFI.
使用医疗保险数据识别虚弱个体的经过验证的基于索赔的虚弱指数(CFI)与临床实践中使用的虚弱测量方法之间的关系尚未得到充分探索。
我们确定了 2015 年国家健康老龄化趋势研究(NHATS)中可以使用链接的医疗保险索赔计算 CFI 分数的居住在社区的参与者。我们从他们的 NHATS 面对面检查中计算了 9 种常用的临床虚弱测量方法:骨质疏松症骨折指数(SOF)、虚弱量表(FRAIL Scale)、虚弱表型、临床虚弱量表(CFS)、脆弱老年人调查-13(VES-13)、蒂尔堡虚弱指标(TFI)、格罗宁根虚弱指标(GFI)、埃德蒙顿虚弱量表(EFS)和 40 项虚弱指数(FI)。使用等百分位法,将 CFI 分数与临床虚弱测量方法相关联。计算 CFI 识别每种临床虚弱测量方法定义的虚弱的 C 统计量和测试特征。
在 3963 名老年人中,44.5%的年龄≥75 岁,59.4%为女性,82.3%为非西班牙裔白人。CFI 为 0.25 与以下临床虚弱测量方法的分数相等:SOF 为 1.4,FRAIL 为 1.8,表型为 1.8,CFS 为 5.4,VES-13 为 5.7,TFI 为 4.6,GFI 为 5.0,EFS 为 6.0,FI 为 0.26。使用 CFI 识别每种临床测量方法定义的虚弱的 C 统计量均≥0.70,除了 CFS 和 VES-13。每个临床虚弱测量方法确定虚弱的最佳 CFI 切点范围为 0.212 至 0.242,灵敏度和特异性分别为 0.37-0.83 和 0.66-0.84。
了解 CFI 与常用临床虚弱测量方法之间的关系可以增强 CFI 的可解释性和潜在效用。