Zhong Lily, Thanapluetiwong Saran, Xu Kailin, Ko Darae, Kim Dae Hyun
University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT, USA.
Hinda and Arthur Marcus Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Drugs Aging. 2024 Dec;41(12):945-958. doi: 10.1007/s40266-024-01157-2. Epub 2024 Nov 25.
Clinicians are increasingly considering using frailty assessments to individualize treatment for older patients. It remains uncertain whether interventions to reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) events offer similar benefits between older adults with and without frailty.
A systematic literature search was undertaken in PubMed and Embase, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Key inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials published between January 2007 and September 2024 with CVD outcomes as an endpoint and data on frailty-specific treatment effects. Data were collected for population characteristics, intervention, follow-up time, frailty measure, outcome rates, and frailty subgroup treatment effect. Due to heterogeneity among the studies, the results were not pooled.
The search identified 151 unique studies, of which 18 were included. Using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0, 12 out of the 18 studies have low risk of bias. The intervention was more effective in frail participants than in non-frail counterparts in two studies (e.g., aerobic exercise), less effective in frail participants in three studies (e.g., intensive lifestyle intervention), similarly effective across frailty levels in seven studies (e.g., prasugrel), and inconclusive in six studies (e.g., edoxaban). Some treatments were similarly effective across frailty level by hazard ratio but had a greater reduction in absolute risk for frail versus non-frail patients.
Cardiovascular interventions may provide differential benefits by patients' frailty. These findings suggest the potential utility of frailty assessment for optimizing cardiovascular interventions.
临床医生越来越多地考虑使用衰弱评估来为老年患者制定个性化治疗方案。对于减少心血管疾病(CVD)事件的干预措施在有衰弱和无衰弱的老年人中是否能带来相似的益处,目前仍不确定。
按照PRISMA指南,在PubMed和Embase中进行了系统的文献检索。主要纳入标准为2007年1月至2024年9月期间发表的以CVD结局为终点且有衰弱特异性治疗效果数据的随机对照试验。收集了关于人群特征、干预措施、随访时间、衰弱测量方法、结局发生率以及衰弱亚组治疗效果的数据。由于研究之间存在异质性,未对结果进行汇总。
检索共识别出151项独特研究,其中18项被纳入。使用Cochrane偏倚风险2.0评估,18项研究中有12项偏倚风险较低。在两项研究中(如有氧运动),干预措施对衰弱参与者比对非衰弱参与者更有效;在三项研究中(如强化生活方式干预),对衰弱参与者效果较差;在七项研究中(如普拉格雷),在不同衰弱水平上效果相似;在六项研究中(如依度沙班),结果尚无定论。一些治疗方法按风险比在不同衰弱水平上效果相似,但与非衰弱患者相比,衰弱患者的绝对风险降低幅度更大。
心血管干预措施可能因患者的衰弱程度而带来不同的益处。这些发现表明衰弱评估对于优化心血管干预措施具有潜在的实用价值。