Predictive Validity of Intrinsic Capacity Composite Scores for Risk of Frailty at 2 Years: A Comparison of 4 Scales.

OBJECTIVE: Intrinsic capacity (IC) and frailty are complementary constructs that encapsulate functional capacities of older adults. Although earlier studies suggest the utility of composite IC scores in predicting risk of frailty, key gaps remain with the lack of direct comparative studies between different IC scales and lack of a composite score based on the World Health Organization Integrated Care for Older People (ICOPE) tool. We aimed to compare different IC scales, including an ICOPE-based scale, in their predictive ability for risk of frailty at 2 years in healthy community-dwelling older adults. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 230 participants (age: 67.2 ± 7.4 years) from the GeriLABS-2 cohort study. METHODS: We derived composite scores by summing 4 IC domains (locomotion, cognition, vitality, and psychological). We compared composite scores of 4 scales: IC1-Chew 2021, range: 0-8; IC2-Liu 2021, range: 0-4; IC3-ICOPE, range: 0-4; IC4-modified ICOPE, range: 0-8. The primary outcome was risk of frailty using the modified Fried Frailty Phenotype. We performed logistic regression to examine the association of baseline composite IC with risk of frailty. We also examined the impact of individual domains and number of impaired domains on risk of frailty. RESULTS: Among 193 (83.9%) older adults who completed 2-year follow-up, 20 (10.4%) met criteria for risk of frailty. When adjusted for covariates, 2-point per domain scales (IC1/IC4) predicted increased risk of frailty (OR, 4.31; 95% CI, 1.55-11.96; OR, 5.00; 95% CI, 1.75-14.26). When further adjusted for baseline frailty, only IC4 remained significant (OR, 4.28; 95% CI, 1.45-12.60). Among the domains, impaired locomotion and vitality were associated with risk of frailty. Greater number of impaired domains predicted increased risk of frailty (IC1/IC2: ß = 0.18-0.19, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Baseline composite IC score using 2-point per domain scales better predicted risk of frailty at 2 years, predicated on impaired locomotion/vitality and greater number of impaired domains. For early identification of healthy older adults at risk of frailty, an ICOPE-based scale should be considered, as it is effective and accessible.

Self-Reported Frailty Screening Tools: Comparing Construct Validity of the Frailty Phenotype Questionnaire and FRAIL.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the construct validity of 2 self-reported frailty questionnaires, the Frailty Phenotype Questionnaire (FPQ) and FRAIL, against the Cardiovascular Health Study frailty phenotype (CHS-FP). DESIGN: Cross-sectional data analysis of longitudinal prospective cohort study. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: We included data from 230 older adults (mean age: 67.2 ± 7.4 years) from the "Longitudinal Assessment of Biomarkers for characterization of early Sarcopenia and Osteosarcopenic Obesity in predicting frailty and functional decline in community-dwelling Asian older adults Study" (GeriLABS 2) recruited between December 2017 and March 2019. METHODS: We compared area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), agreement, correlation, and predictive validity against outcome measures [Short Physical Performance Battery, 5 times repeat chair stand (RCS-5), Frenchay activities index, International Physical Activity Questionnaire, life-space assessment, Social Functioning Scale 8 (SFS-8), EuroQol-5 dimensions (utility value)] using logistic regression adjusted for age, gender, and vascular risk factors. We examined concurrent validity across robust versus prefrail/frail for inflammatory blood biomarkers [tumor necrosis factor receptor 1 and C-reactive protein (CRP)] and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry body composition [bone mineral density (BMD); appendicular lean mass index (ALMI), and fat mass index (FMI)]. RESULTS: Prevalence of prefrail/frail was 25.7%, 14.8%, and 48.3% for FPQ, FRAIL, and CHS-FP, respectively. Compared with FRAIL, FPQ had better diagnostic performance (AUC = 0.617 vs 0.531, P = .002; sensitivity = 37.8% vs 18.0%; specificity = 85.6% vs 88.2%) and agreement (AC1-Stat = 0.303 vs 0.197). FPQ showed good predictive validity [RCS-5: odds ratio (OR) 2.38; 95% CI: 1.17-4.86; International Physical Activity Questionnaire: OR 3.62; 95% CI:1.78-7.34; SFS-8: OR 2.11; 95% CI: 1.64-5.89 vs FRAIL: all P > .05]. Only FRAIL showed concurrent validity for CRP, compared with both FPQ and FRAIL for TNF-R1. FRAIL showed better concurrent validity for BMD, FMI, and possibly ALMI, unlike FPQ (all P > .05). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our results support complementary validity of FPQ and FRAIL in independent community-dwelling older adults. FPQ has increased case detection sensitivity with good predictive validity, whereas FRAIL demonstrates concurrent validity for inflammation and body composition. With better diagnostic performance and validity for blood biomarkers and clinical outcomes, FPQ has utility for early frailty detection in the community setting.

Predictors for development of critical illness amongst older adults with COVID-19: Beyond age to age-associated factors.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults with COVID-19 have disproportionately higher rates of severe disease and mortality. It is unclear whether this is attributable to age or attendant age-associated risk factors. This retrospective cohort study aims to characterize hospitalized older adults and examine if comorbidities, frailty and acuity of clinical presentation exert an age-independent effect on COVID-19 severity. METHODS: We studied 275 patients admitted to the National Centre of Infectious Disease, Singapore. We measured: 1)Charlson Comorbidity Index(CCI) as burden of comorbidities; 2)Clinical Frailty Scale(CFS) and Frailty Index(FI); and 3)initial acuity. We studied characteristics and outcomes of critical illness, stratified by age groups (50-59,60-69 and ≥70). We conducted hierarchical logistic regression in primary model(N = 262, excluding direct admissions to intensive care unit) and sensitivity analysis(N = 275): age and gender in base model, entering CCI, frailty (CFS or FI) and initial acuity sequentially. RESULTS: The ≥70 age group had highest CCI(p<.001), FI(p<.001) and CFS(p<.001), and prevalence of geriatric syndromes (polypharmacy,53.5%; urinary symptoms,37.5%; chronic pain,23.3% and malnutrition,23.3%). Thirty-two (11.6%) developed critical illness. In the primary regression model, age was not predictive for critical illness when a frailty predictor was added. Significant predictors in the final model (AUC 0.809) included male gender (p=.012), CFS (p=.038), and high initial acuity (p=.021) but not CCI or FI. In sensitivity analysis, FI (p=.028) but not CFS was significant. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized older adults with COVID-19, geriatric syndromes are not uncommon. Acuity of clinical presentation and frailty are important age-independent predictors of disease severity. CFS and FI provide complimentary information in predicting interval disease progression and rapid disease progression respectively.