Cargando…

Natural History Trajectories of Frailty in Community-Dwelling Older Japanese Adults

BACKGROUND: The gap between the average life expectancy and healthy life expectancy remains wide. Understanding the natural history of frailty development is necessary to prevent and treat frailty to overcome this gap. This study elucidated the trajectories of 5 frailty assessment components using g...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tange, Chikako, Nishita, Yukiko, Tomida, Makiko, Otsuka, Rei, Ando, Fujiko, Shimokata, Hiroshi, Arai, Hidenori
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9536447/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35679612
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glac130
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The gap between the average life expectancy and healthy life expectancy remains wide. Understanding the natural history of frailty development is necessary to prevent and treat frailty to overcome this gap. This study elucidated the trajectories of 5 frailty assessment components using group-based multitrajectory modeling. METHODS: Overall, 845 community-dwelling older adults (aged 65–91 years; 433 males and 412 females) who underwent longitudinal frailty assessments at least 3 times were included in the analysis. The mean follow-up period (±SD, range) was 7.1 (±2.3, 3.8–11.3) years. In each wave, the physical frailty was assessed for the following 5 partially modified components of the Cardiovascular Health Study criteria: shrinking, weakness, exhaustion, slowness, and low activity. Using group-based multitrajectory modeling, we identified subgroups that followed distinctive trajectories regarding the 5 frailty components. RESULTS: Five frailty trajectory groups were identified: weakness-focused frail progression group (Group 1 [G1]; 10.9%), robust maintenance group (Group 2 [G2]; 43.7%), exhaustion-focused prefrail group (Group 3 [G3]; 24.3%), frail progression group (Group 4 [G4]; 6.7%), and low activity–focused prefrail group (Group 5 [G5]; 14.4%). The Cox proportional hazards model analysis showed that G1, G4, and G5 had significantly higher mortality risks after adjusting for sex and age (G2 was the reference group). CONCLUSION: Based on the natural history of frailty, the 5 distinctive trajectory groups showed that some individuals remained robust, while others remained predominantly prefrail or progressed primarily owing to physical mobility decline. Therefore, identifying individuals belonging to these progressive frailty groups and providing interventions according to the characteristics of each group may be beneficial.