Cargando…

Can markers of biological age predict dependency in old age?

Recent research has shown that markers of biological age, such as leukocyte telomere length (LTL), epigenetic clocks and the frailty index (FI) are predictive of mortality and age-related diseases. However, whether these markers associate with the need for care in old age, thereby having utility in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jylhävä, Juulia, Jiang, Miao, Foebel, Andrea D., Pedersen, Nancy L., Hägg, Sara
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Netherlands 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6535415/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30666568
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10522-019-09795-5
_version_ 1783421565915889664
author Jylhävä, Juulia
Jiang, Miao
Foebel, Andrea D.
Pedersen, Nancy L.
Hägg, Sara
author_facet Jylhävä, Juulia
Jiang, Miao
Foebel, Andrea D.
Pedersen, Nancy L.
Hägg, Sara
author_sort Jylhävä, Juulia
collection PubMed
description Recent research has shown that markers of biological age, such as leukocyte telomere length (LTL), epigenetic clocks and the frailty index (FI) are predictive of mortality and age-related diseases. However, whether these markers associate with the need for care in old age, thereby having utility in reflecting dependency, is unclear. This study was undertaken to analyze whether LTL, two epigenetic clocks—the DNA methylation age (DNAmAge) and DNAm PhenoAge—and the FI are associated with the need for regular care in up to 604 individuals (aged 48–94 years) participating in the Swedish Adoption/Twin Study of Aging. Need for regular care was defined as receiving formal or informal help in daily routines at least once per week. Logistic regression adjusted for age, sex and education was used in the analysis. The predictive accuracies, assessed as the area under the curve (AUC) for the significant biological age measures were further compared to the accuracies of the limitations in activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental ADL (IADL). Neither LTL nor the epigenetic clocks were associated with the need for care, whereas the FI was; odds ratio for 10% increase in FI 3.54 (95% confidence interval 2.32–5.41). The FI also demonstrated higher predictive accuracy than the ADL score (FI AUC 0.80 vs. ADL score AUC 0.62; p < 0.001 for equality of the AUCs), whereas the difference between FI AUC (0.80) and IADL score AUC (0.75) was not significant (p = 0.238). The FI might thus be a useful marker for the need for care. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s10522-019-09795-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6535415
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer Netherlands
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65354152019-06-12 Can markers of biological age predict dependency in old age? Jylhävä, Juulia Jiang, Miao Foebel, Andrea D. Pedersen, Nancy L. Hägg, Sara Biogerontology Research Article Recent research has shown that markers of biological age, such as leukocyte telomere length (LTL), epigenetic clocks and the frailty index (FI) are predictive of mortality and age-related diseases. However, whether these markers associate with the need for care in old age, thereby having utility in reflecting dependency, is unclear. This study was undertaken to analyze whether LTL, two epigenetic clocks—the DNA methylation age (DNAmAge) and DNAm PhenoAge—and the FI are associated with the need for regular care in up to 604 individuals (aged 48–94 years) participating in the Swedish Adoption/Twin Study of Aging. Need for regular care was defined as receiving formal or informal help in daily routines at least once per week. Logistic regression adjusted for age, sex and education was used in the analysis. The predictive accuracies, assessed as the area under the curve (AUC) for the significant biological age measures were further compared to the accuracies of the limitations in activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental ADL (IADL). Neither LTL nor the epigenetic clocks were associated with the need for care, whereas the FI was; odds ratio for 10% increase in FI 3.54 (95% confidence interval 2.32–5.41). The FI also demonstrated higher predictive accuracy than the ADL score (FI AUC 0.80 vs. ADL score AUC 0.62; p < 0.001 for equality of the AUCs), whereas the difference between FI AUC (0.80) and IADL score AUC (0.75) was not significant (p = 0.238). The FI might thus be a useful marker for the need for care. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s10522-019-09795-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Netherlands 2019-01-21 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6535415/ /pubmed/30666568 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10522-019-09795-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Research Article
Jylhävä, Juulia
Jiang, Miao
Foebel, Andrea D.
Pedersen, Nancy L.
Hägg, Sara
Can markers of biological age predict dependency in old age?
title Can markers of biological age predict dependency in old age?
title_full Can markers of biological age predict dependency in old age?
title_fullStr Can markers of biological age predict dependency in old age?
title_full_unstemmed Can markers of biological age predict dependency in old age?
title_short Can markers of biological age predict dependency in old age?
title_sort can markers of biological age predict dependency in old age?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6535415/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30666568
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10522-019-09795-5
work_keys_str_mv AT jylhavajuulia canmarkersofbiologicalagepredictdependencyinoldage
AT jiangmiao canmarkersofbiologicalagepredictdependencyinoldage
AT foebelandread canmarkersofbiologicalagepredictdependencyinoldage
AT pedersennancyl canmarkersofbiologicalagepredictdependencyinoldage
AT haggsara canmarkersofbiologicalagepredictdependencyinoldage