Differential utility of various frailty diagnostic tools in non-geriatric hospital departments of several countries: A longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: There is limited knowledge on the performance of different frailty scales in clinical settings. We sought to evaluate in non-geriatric hospital departments the feasibility, agreement and predictive ability for adverse events after 1 year follow-up of several frailty assessment tools. METHODS: Longitudinal study with 667 older adults recruited from five hospitals in three different countries (Spain, Italy and United Kingdom). Participants were older than 75 years attending the emergency room, cardiology and surgery departments. Frailty scales used were Frailty Phenotype (FP), FRAIL scale, Tilburg and Groningen Frailty Indicators, and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). Analyses included the prevalence of frailty, degree of agreement between tools, feasibility and prognostic value for hospital readmission, worsening of disability and mortality, by tool and setting. RESULTS: Emergency Room and cardiology were the settings with the highest frailty prevalence, varying by tool between 40.4% and 67.2%; elective surgery was the one with the lowest prevalence (between 13.2% and 38.2%). The tools showed a fair to moderate agreement. FP showed the lowest feasibility, especially in urgent surgery (35.6%). FRAIL, CFS and FP predicted mortality and readmissions in several settings, but disability worsening only in cardiology. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty is a highly frequent condition in older people attending non-geriatric hospital departments. We recommend that based upon their current feasibility and predictive ability, the FRAIL scale, CFS and FP should be preferentially used in these settings. The low concordance among the tools and differences in prevalence reported and predictive ability suggest the existence of different subtypes of frailty.

"SARCOPENIA MEASURED BY ULTRASOUND IN HOSPITALIZED OLDER ADULTS" (ECOSARC): multi-centre, prospective observational study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of muscle mass and function, and thereafter, screening and diagnosis of sarcopenia, is a challenge and a need in hospitalized older adults. However, it is difficult in complex real-world old patients, because usually they are unable to collaborate with clinical, functional, and imaging testing. Ultrasound measurement of quadriceps rectus femoris (QRF) provides a non-invasive, real-time assessment of muscle quantity and quality, and is highly acceptable to participants with excellent inter-rater and intra-rater variability. However, normative data, protocol standardization, and association with longitudinal outcomes, needs further research and consensus. METHODS: Prospective exploratory multicenter study in older adults admitted to Acute Geriatric Units (AGUs) for medical reasons. 157 subjects from 7 AGUs of Spain were recruited between May 2019 and January 2022. Muscle ultrasound measurements of the anterior vastus of the QRF were acquired on admission and on discharge, using a previously validated protocol, using a Chieson model ECO2 ultrasound system (Chieson Medical Technologies, Co. Ltd, Wimxu District Wuxi, Jiangsu, China). Measurements included the cross-sectional area, muscle thickness in longitudinal view, intramuscular central tendon thickness, echogenicity, and the presence or absence of edema and fasciculations. Functional, nutritional, and DXA measurements were provided. Clinical follow-up was completed at discharge, and 30 and 90 days after discharge. Variations between hospital admission and discharge ultrasound values, and the relationship with clinical variables, will be analyzed using paired t-tests, Wilcoxon tests, or Mc Nemar chi-square tests when necessary. Prevalence of sarcopenia will be calculated, as well as sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound measurements to determine sarcopenia. Kappa analysis will be used to analyze the concordance between measurements, and sensitivity analysis will be conducted for each participating center. DISCUSSION: The results obtained will be of great interest to the scientific geriatric community to assess the utility and validity of ultrasound measurements for the detection and follow-up of sarcopenia in hospitalized older adults, and its association with adverse outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05113758. Registration date: November 9th 2021. Retrospectively registered.

FRAILTOOLS study protocol: a comprehensive validation of frailty assessment tools to screen and diagnose frailty in different clinical and social settings and to provide instruments for integrated care in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Dozens of scales and questionnaires have been used in the detection of frailty; however, a generalized method for its screening and diagnosis is still lacking in clinical settings. FRAILTOOLS´ main objective is to evaluate the usefulness of frailty scales in the detection of frailty in different clinical and social settings, and its integration in management algorithms for the frail older patient. METHODS: FRAILTOOLS is an observational, longitudinal and prospective study with a follow-up of 6, 12 and 18 months. People older than 75 years old will be recruited from three separate clinical settings (acute geriatric wards, geriatric outpatient clinics and primary care) and one social setting (nursing homes). Exclusion criteria include Mini-mental State Examination < 20 points, and a Barthel index < 90 points, except in nursing home residents (< 40 points). The participants will be recruited in Spain, Italy, France, United Kingdom and Poland. The total sample size will be of 1.940 subjects, 97 subjects in each clinical setting by center. A personal interview with each participant will take place to register data on comorbidity (Charlson Index), functional (SPPB, Barthel and Lawton indexes), cognitive (MMSE) and frailty status (Fried Phenotype, Frailty Trait Scale - short version, SHARE-FI, 35-Items Rockwood Frailty Index, Clinical Frailty Scale, FRAIL scale and Gérontopôle Frailty Screening Tool) in the baseline visit, month 12 and month 18 visit of follow up. At 6 month a phone call will be made to assess whether there have been falls and to check the vital status. DISCUSSION: Currently, the usefulness of certain assessment tools in social and clinical settings have not been properly assessed, including their ability to predict the individual risk for different adverse outcomes, which is the main interest in daily practice. The FRAILTOOLS project concentrates on providing screening and diagnostic tools for frailty in those settings where its prevalence is the highest and where efforts in prevention could make a significant change in the trend towards disability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Comprehensive validation of frailty assessment tools in older adults in different clinical and social settings (FRAILTOOLS), NCT02637518 (date of registration: 12/18/2015).

Management of Cancer in the Older Age Person: An Approach to Complex Medical Decisions.

The management of cancer in older aged people is becoming a common problem due to the aging of the population. There are many variables determining the complex situation that are interconnected. Some of them can be assessed, such as risk of mortality and risk of treatment complications, but many others are still unknown, such as the course of disease, the host-related factors that influence cancer aggressiveness, and the phenotype heralding risk of permanent treatment-related damage.This article presents a dynamic and personalized approach to older people with cancer based on our experience on aging, cancer, and their biological interactions. Also, novel treatments and management approaches to older individuals, based on their functional age and their social and emotional needs, are thoughtfully explored here. The Oncologist 2017;22:335-342 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The goal of this article is to suggest a practical approach to complexity, a clinical situation becoming increasingly common with the aging of the population. Beginning with the analysis of two clinical cases, the authors offer an algorithm for approaching cancer in the older person that involves the assessment of life expectancy without cancer, the risk that cancer might compromise a patient's survival, function, or quality of life, and the potential benefits and risks of the treatments based on a clinical evaluation. The authors then review possible laboratory assessment of functional age and the importance of rapid-learning databases in the study of cancer and age.

Effectiveness of a randomized intervention by a geriatric team in frail hospital inpatients in non-geriatric settings: FRAILCLINIC project.

BACKGROUND: Little research has been undertaken on the benefits of frailty management within different hospital settings. The objective of this study is to provide evidence on the viability and effectiveness of frailty management in non-geriatric hospital settings on mortality and functional decline after discharge. METHODS: Data from the FRAILCLINIC (NCT02643069) study were used. FRAILCLINIC is a randomized controlled trial developed in non-geriatric hospital inpatient settings (emergency room, cardiology and surgery) from Spain (2), Italy (2) and the United Kingdom (1). Inpatients must met frailty criteria (according to the Frailty Phenotype and/or FRAIL scale), ≥75 years old. The control group (CG) received usual care. The intervention group (IG) received comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) and a coordinated intervention consisting in recommendations to the treating physician about polypharmacy, delirium, falls, nutrition and physical exercise plus a discharge plan. The main outcomes included functional decline (worsening ≥5 points in Barthel Index) and mortality at 3 months. We used multivariate logistic regression models adjusted by age, gender and the Charlson index. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were used. RESULTS: Eight hundred twenty one participants (IG: 416; mean age 83.00 ± 4.91; 51.44% women; CG: 405; mean age 82.46 ± 6.03; 52.35% women) were included. In the IG, 77.16% of the participants followed the geriatric team's recommendations as implemented by the treating physicians. The intervention showed a benefit on functional decline and mortality [OR: 0.67(0.47-0.96), P-value 0.027 and 0.29(0.14-0.57), P-value < 0.001, respectively) when fully followed by the treating physician. A trend to benefit (close to statistical significance) in functional decline and mortality were also observed when any of the recommendations were not followed [OR (95% CI): 0.72 (0.51-1.01), P-value: 0.055; and 0.64 (0.37-1.10), P-value: 0.105, respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: An individualized intervention in frail in-patients reduces the risk of functional deterioration and mortality at 3 months of follow-up when a care management plan is designed and followed.

Muscle mass loss measured with portable ultrasound in hospitalized older adults: The ECOSARC study.

OBJECTIVES: The main objective was to analyze the evolution of muscle of the Quadriceps Rectus Femoris (QRF) between admission and discharge, in older adults hospitalized with an acute medical disease in Acute Geriatric Units (AGUs). DESIGN: Prospective multicentric observational cohort study. SETTING: Seven AGUs from University Hospitals in Spain. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized adults ≥ 70 years old, able to ambulate and without severe dementia. MEASUREMENTS: Ultrasound measurements of QRF were acquired at 2/3 distal between anterior-superior iliac spine and patella in both legs by trained Geriatricians. Ultrasound Chison model ECO2 was used. QRF area, thickness, edema, echogenicity, and fasciculations were measured. RESULTS: From the complete sample (n = 143), in 45 (31.5%) participants, ultrasound images were classified as non-valid by an expert radiologist. Mean age was 87.8 (SD 5.4). Mean hospital stay 7.6 days (SD 4.3). From those with valid images, 36 (49.3%), 2 (2.7%), and 35 (47.9%) presented a decrease, equal values, or an increase in QRF area from baseline to discharge, respectively, and 37 (50.0%), 2 (2.7%), and 35 (47.3%) presented a decrease, equal values, or an increase in QRF thickness, respectively. 26 (35.6%) presented a decrease in more than 0.2 cm2 of QRF area, and 23 (31.1%) a decrease in more than 0.1 cm of QRF thickness. Only 4 (5.4%) patients presented new edema, while 13 (17.6%) worsened echogenicity. CONCLUSION: One third of older adults develop significant muscle loss during a hospitalization for acute medical diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05113758.

Cross-cultural adaptation of the FRAIL scale for critically ill patients in Spain.

AIM: To translate and culturally adapt the FRAIL scale into Spanish and perform a preliminary test of diagnostic accuracy in patients admitted to intensive care units. DESIGN: Cross-sectional diagnostic study. METHODS: Five intensive care units (ICU) in Spain were participated. Stage 1: Three native Spanish-speaking bilingual translators familiar with the field of critical care translated the scale from English into Spanish. Stage 2: Three native English-speaking bilingual translators familiar with critical care medicine. Stage 3: Authors of the original scale compared the English original and back-translated versions of the scale. Stage 4: Five nurses with more than 5 years of ICU experience and five critical care physicians assessed the comprehension and relevance of each of the items of the Spanish version in 30 patients of 3 different age ranges (<50, 50-65 and >65 years). RESULTS: The FRAIL scale was translated and adapted cross-culturally for patients admitted to intensive care units in Spain. The process consisted of four stages: translation, back translation, comparison and pilot test. There was good correspondence between the original scale and the Spanish version in 100% of the items. The participating patients assessed the relevance (content validity) and comprehensibility (face validity) of each of the items of the first Spanish version. The relevance of some of the items scored low when the scale was used in patients younger than 65 years. CONCLUSIONS: We have cross-culturally adapted the FRAIL scale, originally in English, to Spanish for its use in the critical care medical setting in Spanish-speaking countries. IMPLICATIONS FOR PROFESSIONALS: Physicians and nurses can apply the new scale to all patients admitted to the intensive care units. Nursing care can be adapted according to frailty, trying to reduce the side effects of admission to these units for the most fragile patients. REPORTING METHOD: The manuscript's authors have adhered to the EQUATOR guidelines, using the COSMIN reporting guideline for studies on the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: In a pilot clinical study, we applied the first version of the FRAIL-Spain scale to intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Five nurses with more than 5 years of ICU experience and five critical care physicians assessed the relevance (content validity) and comprehensibility (face validity) of the five items of the first Spanish version. Relevance was assessed using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (no relevance) to 4 (high relevance), and comprehensibility was assessed as poor, acceptable or good. Each health professional applied the scale to three patients (total number of patients = 30) of three different age ranges (<50, 50-65 and >65 years) and recorded the time of application of the scale to each patient. Although the frailty scales were initially created by geriatricians to be applied to the elders, there is little experience with their application in critically ill patients of any age. Therefore, more information is needed to determine the relevance of using this scale in critical care patients. In this pilot study, we considered that nurses and critical care physicians should evaluate frailty using this adapted scale in adult patients admitted to the Intensive Care Units.

The ability of eight frailty instruments to identify adverse outcomes across different settings: the FRAILTOOLS project.

BACKGROUND: To compare the performance of eight frailty instruments to identify relevant adverse outcomes for older people across different settings over a 12 month follow-up. METHODS: Observational longitudinal prospective study of people aged 75 + years enrolled in different settings (acute geriatric wards, geriatric clinic, primary care clinics, and nursing homes) across five European cities. Frailty was assessed using the following: Frailty Phenotype, SHARE-FI, 5-item Frailty Trait Scale (FTS-5), 3-item FTS (FTS-3), FRAIL scale, 35-item Frailty Index (FI-35), Gérontopôle Frailty Screening Tool, and Clinical Frailty Scale. Adverse outcomes ascertained at follow-up were as follows: falls, hospitalization, increase in limitation in basic (BADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), and mortality. Sensitivity, specificity, and capacity to predict adverse outcomes in logistic regressions by each instrument above age, gender, and multimorbidity were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 996 individuals were followed (mean age 82.2 SD 5.5 years, 61.3% female). In geriatric wards, the FI-35 (69.1%) and the FTS-5 (67.9%) showed good sensitivity to predict death and good specificity to predict BADL worsening (70.3% and 69.8%, respectively). The FI-35 also showed good sensitivity to predict BADL worsening (74.6%). In nursing homes, the FI-35 and the FTSs predicted mortality and BADL worsening with a sensitivity > 73.9%. In geriatric clinic, the FI-35, the FTS-5, and the FRAIL scale obtained specificities > 85% to predict BADL worsening. No instrument achieved high enough sensitivity nor specificity in primary care. All the instruments predict the risk for all the outcomes in the whole sample after adjusting for age, gender, and multimorbidity. The associations of these instruments that remained significant by setting were for BADL worsening in geriatric wards [FI-35 OR = 5.94 (2.69-13.14), FTS-3 = 3.87 (1.76-8.48)], nursing homes [FI-35 = 4.88 (1.54-15.44), FTS-5 = 3.20 (1.61-6.38), FTS-3 = 2.31 (1.27-4.21), FRAIL scale = 1.91 (1.05-3.48)], and geriatric clinic [FRAIL scale = 4.48 (1.73-11.58), FI-35 = 3.30 (1.55-7.00)]; for IADL worsening in primary care [FTS-5 = 3.99 (1.14-13.89)] and geriatric clinic [FI-35 = 3.42 (1.56-7.49), FRAIL scale = 3.27 (1.21-8.86)]; for hospitalizations in primary care [FI-35 = 3.04 (1.25-7.39)]; and for falls in geriatric clinic [FI-35 = 2.21 (1.01-4.84)]. CONCLUSIONS: No single assessment instrument performs the best for all settings and outcomes. While in inpatients several commonly used frailty instruments showed good sensitivities (mainly for mortality and BADL worsening) but usually poor specificities, the contrary happened in geriatric clinic. None of the instruments showed a good performance in primary care. The FI-35 and the FTS-5 showed the best profile among the instruments assessed.

A Comparison of Frailty Assessment Instruments in Different Clinical and Social Care Settings: The Frailtools Project.

OBJECTIVE: To determine which of 8 commonly employed frailty assessment tools demonstrate the most appropriate characteristics to be employed in different clinical and social settings. DESIGN: Cross-sectional multicenter European-based study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 1440 patients aged ≥75 years evaluated in geriatric inpatient wards, geriatric outpatient clinics, primary care clinics, and nursing homes. METHODS: The frailty instruments used were Frailty Phenotype, SHARE-FI, 3-item Frailty Trait Scale (FTS-3), 5-item Frailty Trait Scale (FTS-5), FRAIL, 35-item Frailty Index (FI-35), Gérontopôle Frailty Screening Tool (GFST), and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). The settings were geriatrics wards, outpatient clinics, primary care, and nursing homes. Suitability was evaluated by considering the feasibility (patients with the test fully completed), administration time (time spent for administering the test), and interscale agreement (Cohen kappa index among instruments to detect frailty). RESULTS: The prevalence of frailty varied across settings and adopted tests. The scales with the mean highest feasibility were the FRAIL scale (99.4%), SHARE-FI (98.3%), and GFST (95.0%). The mean shortest administration times were obtained with CFS (24 seconds), GFST (72 seconds), and FRAIL scale (90 seconds). The interscale agreement between most of the tests was fair. CFS followed by FTS-5 agreed at least moderately with a greater number of scales overall and in almost all settings. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Based on feasibility, time to undertake the tool, and agreement with other scales, different scales would be recommended according to the setting considered. Our findings suggest that most of the tools evaluated are actually assessing different frailty constructs.