Frailty trajectories in community-dwelling older adults during COVID-19 pandemic: The PRESTIGE study

Is age discrimination a risk factor for frailty progression and frailty development among older adults? A prospective cohort analysis of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing

BACKGROUND

With the increasing global burden of frailty on healthcare resources, it is important to understand the modifiable risk factors of frailty. This study examined perceived age discrimination as a potential risk factor for frailty progression and frailty development among older adults.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study using data from Waves 5 to 9 of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA). Data on perceived age discrimination was collected only in Wave 5 of ELSA and analysed as baseline data in this study. Frailty was defined using the Frailty Index (FI) scores (0 to 1), calculated using the multidimensional deficits (scores ≥ 0.25 were considered frail). Binomial generalised estimating equation models (GEE) were fitted in R studio using perceived age discrimination as the main predictor with age, gender, long-standing illness, cognition, subjective social status status (SSS) and psychological wellbeing as covariates. Odd ratios were reported with 95 % confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

A total sample of 2,385 ELSA participants were included in the analysis. 55.8 % (n = 1312) were female, mean age 71.9 (SD ± 5.27) years and baseline frailty prevalence was 12.1 % (n = 288). Perceived age discrimination was reported by 38.4 % (n = 916) of the participants. Both frailty progression (OR 1.50, CI [1.26- 1.70]) and frailty development (OR 1.39, CI [1.14-1.62]) were significantly associated with perceived age discrimination in the fully adjusted models. Age (80+ years) (OR 3.72, CI [2.84-4.86]) and long-standing illness (OR 5.45, CI [4.43-6.67]) had the strongest association with respondents' frailty progression.

CONCLUSION

Perceived age discrimination significantly increased the risk of frailty progression and frailty development among ELSA participants.

A multidimensional approach to older patients during COVID-19 pandemic: a position paper of the Special Interest Group on Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment of the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EuGMS)

PURPOSE

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a dramatic trigger that has challenged the intrinsic capacity of older adults and of society. Due to the consequences for the older population worldwide, the Special Interest Group on Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) of the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EuGMS) took the initiative of collecting evidence on the usefulness of the CGA-based multidimensional approach to older people during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

A narrative review of the most relevant articles published between January 2020 and November 2022 that focused on the multidimensional assessment of older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.

RESULTS

Current evidence supports the critical role of the multidimensional approach to identify older adults hospitalized with COVID-19 at higher risk of longer hospitalization, functional decline, and short-term mortality. This approach appears to also be pivotal for the adequate stratification and management of the post-COVID condition as well as for the adoption of preventive measures (e.g., vaccinations, healthy lifestyle) among non-infected individuals.

CONCLUSION

Collecting information on multiple health domains (e.g., functional, cognitive, nutritional, social status, mobility, comorbidities, and polypharmacy) provides a better understanding of the intrinsic capacities and resilience of older adults affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection. The EuGMS SIG on CGA endorses the adoption of the multidimensional approach to guide the clinical management of older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Older People Hospitalized for COVID-19: Prognostic Role of Multidimensional Prognostic Index and Other Prognostic Scores

During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, frailty and patients’ poor outcomes seem to be closely related. However, there is no clear indication of the significance of this connection and the most adequate risk index in clinical practice. In this study, we compared a short version of MPI (multidimensional prognostic index) and other two prognostic scores for COVID-19 as potential predictors of poor patient outcomes. The patients were consecutively enrolled in the hospital of Palermo for COVID-19. The accuracy of Brief-MPI, 4C score and COVID-GRAM score in points was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC) with 95% CI, taking mortality or sub-ICU admission as outcome. The study included 112 participants (mean age 77.6, 55.4% males). During a mean of 16 days of hospitalization, Brief-MPI significantly increased by 0.03 ± 0.14 (p = 0.04), whilst COVID-GRAM did not. Brief-MPI, 4C score and COVID-GRAM scores had good accuracy in predicting negative outcomes (AUC > 0.70 for all three scores). Brief-MPI was significantly associated with an increased mortality/ICU admission risk, indicating the importance of multidimensional impairment in clinical decision-making with an accuracy similar to other prognostic scores commonly used in COVID-19 study, providing information regarding domains for which interventions can be proposed.