Device-measured physical activity and sedentary time in a national sample of Luxembourg residents: the ORISCAV-LUX 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Existing information about population physical activity (PA) levels and sedentary time in Luxembourg are based on self-reported data. METHODS: This observational study included Luxembourg residents aged 18-79y who each provided ≥4 valid days of triaxial accelerometry in 2016-18 (n=1122). Compliance with the current international PA guideline (≥150 min moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) per week, irrespective of bout length) was quantified and variability in average 24h acceleration (indicative of PA volume), awake-time PA levels, sedentary time and accumulation pattern were analysed by linear regression. Data were weighted to be nationally representative. RESULTS: Participants spent 51% of daily time sedentary (mean (95% confidence interval (CI)): 12.1 (12.0 to 12.2) h/day), 11% in light PA (2.7 (2.6 to 2.8) h/day), 6% in MVPA (1.5 (1.4 to 1.5) h/day), and remaining time asleep (7.7 (7.6 to 7.7) h/day). Adherence to the PA guideline was high (98.1%). Average 24h acceleration and light PA were higher in women than men, but men achieved higher average accelerations across the most active periods of the day. Women performed less sedentary time and shorter sedentary bouts. Older participants (aged ≥55y) registered a lower average 24h acceleration and engaged in less MVPA, more sedentary time and longer sedentary bouts. Average 24h acceleration was higher in participants of lower educational attainment, who also performed less sedentary time, shorter bouts, and fewer bouts of prolonged sedentariness. Average 24h acceleration and levels of PA were higher in participants with standing and manual occupations than a sedentary work type, but manual workers registered lower average accelerations across the most active periods of the day. Standing and manual workers accumulated less sedentary time and fewer bouts of prolonged sedentariness than sedentary workers. Active commuting to work was associated with higher average 24h acceleration and MVPA, both of which were lower in participants of poorer self-rated health and higher weight status. Obesity was associated with less light PA, more sedentary time and longer sedentary bouts. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to recommended PA is high in Luxembourg, but half of daily time is spent sedentary. Specific population subgroups will benefit from targeted efforts to replace sedentary time with PA.

Prospective Association Among Diabetes Diagnosis, HbA1c, Glycemia, and Frailty Trajectories in an Elderly Population.

OBJECTIVE: Frailty is a dynamic state of vulnerability in the elderly. We examined whether individuals with overt diabetes or higher levels of HbA1c or fasting plasma glucose (FG) experience different frailty trajectories with aging. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Diabetes, HbA1c, and FG were assessed at baseline, and frailty status was evaluated with a 36-item frailty index every 2 years during a 10-year follow-up among participants from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA). Mixed-effects models with age as time scale were used to assess whether age trajectories of frailty differed as a function of diabetes, HbA1c, and FG. RESULTS: Among 5,377 participants (median age [interquartile range] 70 [65, 77] years, 45% men), 35% were frail at baseline. In a model adjusted for sex, participants with baseline diabetes had an increased frailty index over aging compared with those without diabetes. Similar findings were observed with higher levels of HbA1c, while FG was not associated with frailty. In a model additionally adjusted for income, social class, smoking, alcohol, and hemoglobin, only diabetes was associated with an increased frailty index. Among nonfrail participants at baseline, both diabetes and HbA1c level were associated with a higher increased frailty index over time. CONCLUSIONS: People with diabetes or higher HbA1c levels at baseline had a higher frailty level throughout later life. Nonfrail participants with diabetes or higher HbA1c also experienced more rapid deterioration of frailty level with aging. This observation could reflect a role of diabetes complications in frailty trajectories or earlier shared determinants that contribute to diabetes and frailty risk in later life.

Comparative analysis of the association between 35 frailty scores and cardiovascular events, cancer, and total mortality in an elderly general population in England: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: Frail elderly people experience elevated mortality. However, no consensus exists on the definition of frailty, and many frailty scores have been developed. The main aim of this study was to compare the association between 35 frailty scores and incident cardiovascular disease (CVD), incident cancer, and all-cause mortality. Also, we aimed to assess whether frailty scores added predictive value to basic and adjusted models for these outcomes. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Through a structured literature search, we identified 35 frailty scores that could be calculated at wave 2 of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA), an observational cohort study. We analysed data from 5,294 participants, 44.9% men, aged 60 years and over. We studied the association between each of the scores and the incidence of CVD, cancer, and all-cause mortality during a 7-year follow-up using Cox proportional hazard models at progressive levels of adjustment. We also examined the added predictive performance of each score on top of basic models using Harrell's C statistic. Using age of the participant as a timescale, in sex-adjusted models, hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence intervals) for all-cause mortality ranged from 2.4 (95% CI: 1.7-3.3) to 26.2 (95% CI: 15.4-44.5). In further adjusted models including smoking status and alcohol consumption, HR ranged from 2.3 (95% CI: 1.6-3.1) to 20.2 (95% CI: 11.8-34.5). In fully adjusted models including lifestyle and comorbidity, HR ranged from 0.9 (95% CI: 0.5-1.7) to 8.4 (95% CI: 4.9-14.4). HRs for CVD and cancer incidence in sex-adjusted models ranged from 1.2 (95% CI: 0.5-3.2) to 16.5 (95% CI: 7.8-35.0) and from 0.7 (95% CI: 0.4-1.2) to 2.4 (95% CI: 1.0-5.7), respectively. In sex- and age-adjusted models, all frailty scores showed significant added predictive performance for all-cause mortality, increasing the C statistic by up to 3%. None of the scores significantly improved basic prediction models for CVD or cancer. A source of bias could be the differences in mortality follow-up time compared to CVD/cancer, because the existence of informative censoring cannot be excluded. CONCLUSION: There is high variability in the strength of the association between frailty scores and 7-year all-cause mortality, incident CVD, and cancer. With regard to all-cause mortality, some scores give a modest improvement to the predictive ability. Our results show that certain scores clearly outperform others with regard to three important health outcomes in later life. Finally, we think that despite their limitations, the use of frailty scores to identify the elderly population at risk is still a useful measure, and the choice of a frailty score should balance feasibility with performance.

Agreement Between 35 Published Frailty Scores in the General Population.

In elderly populations, frailty is associated with higher mortality risk. Although many frailty scores (FS) have been proposed, no single score is considered the gold standard. We aimed to evaluate the agreement between a wide range of FS in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA). Through a literature search, we identified 35 FS that could be calculated in ELSA wave 2 (2004-2005). We examined agreement between each frailty score and the mean of 35 FS, using a modified Bland-Altman model and Cohen's kappa (κ). Missing data were imputed. Data from 5,377 participants (ages ≥60 years) were analyzed (44.7% men, 55.3% women). FS showed widely differing degrees of agreement with the mean of all scores and between each pair of scores. Frailty classification also showed a very wide range of agreement (Cohen's κ = 0.10-0.83). Agreement was highest among "accumulation of deficits"-type FS, while accuracy was highest for multidimensional FS. There is marked heterogeneity in the degree to which various FS estimate frailty and in the identification of particular individuals as frail. Different FS are based on different concepts of frailty, and most pairs cannot be assumed to be interchangeable. Research results based on different FS cannot be compared or pooled.