Assessing Frailty-Specific Treatment Effect in Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Drugs & Aging Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-25 DOI:10.1007/s40266-024-01157-2
Lily Zhong, Saran Thanapluetiwong, Kailin Xu, Darae Ko, Dae Hyun Kim
{"title":"Assessing Frailty-Specific Treatment Effect in Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Lily Zhong, Saran Thanapluetiwong, Kailin Xu, Darae Ko, Dae Hyun Kim","doi":"10.1007/s40266-024-01157-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinicians are increasingly considering using frailty assessments to individualize treatment for older patients. It remains uncertain whether interventions to reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) events offer similar benefits between older adults with and without frailty.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature search was undertaken in PubMed and Embase, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Key inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials published between January 2007 and September 2024 with CVD outcomes as an endpoint and data on frailty-specific treatment effects. Data were collected for population characteristics, intervention, follow-up time, frailty measure, outcome rates, and frailty subgroup treatment effect. Due to heterogeneity among the studies, the results were not pooled.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search identified 151 unique studies, of which 18 were included. Using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0, 12 out of the 18 studies have low risk of bias. The intervention was more effective in frail participants than in non-frail counterparts in two studies (e.g., aerobic exercise), less effective in frail participants in three studies (e.g., intensive lifestyle intervention), similarly effective across frailty levels in seven studies (e.g., prasugrel), and inconclusive in six studies (e.g., edoxaban). Some treatments were similarly effective across frailty level by hazard ratio but had a greater reduction in absolute risk for frail versus non-frail patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Cardiovascular interventions may provide differential benefits by patients' frailty. These findings suggest the potential utility of frailty assessment for optimizing cardiovascular interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":11489,"journal":{"name":"Drugs & Aging","volume":" ","pages":"945-958"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drugs & Aging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-024-01157-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Clinicians are increasingly considering using frailty assessments to individualize treatment for older patients. It remains uncertain whether interventions to reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) events offer similar benefits between older adults with and without frailty.

Methods: A systematic literature search was undertaken in PubMed and Embase, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Key inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials published between January 2007 and September 2024 with CVD outcomes as an endpoint and data on frailty-specific treatment effects. Data were collected for population characteristics, intervention, follow-up time, frailty measure, outcome rates, and frailty subgroup treatment effect. Due to heterogeneity among the studies, the results were not pooled.

Results: The search identified 151 unique studies, of which 18 were included. Using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0, 12 out of the 18 studies have low risk of bias. The intervention was more effective in frail participants than in non-frail counterparts in two studies (e.g., aerobic exercise), less effective in frail participants in three studies (e.g., intensive lifestyle intervention), similarly effective across frailty levels in seven studies (e.g., prasugrel), and inconclusive in six studies (e.g., edoxaban). Some treatments were similarly effective across frailty level by hazard ratio but had a greater reduction in absolute risk for frail versus non-frail patients.

Conclusions: Cardiovascular interventions may provide differential benefits by patients' frailty. These findings suggest the potential utility of frailty assessment for optimizing cardiovascular interventions.

评估心血管疾病的虚弱特异性治疗效果:系统回顾
背景:临床医生越来越多地考虑使用虚弱评估来对老年患者进行个体化治疗。目前仍不确定的是,为减少心血管疾病(CVD)事件而采取的干预措施是否能为体弱和非体弱的老年人带来相似的益处:根据 PRISMA 指南,在 PubMed 和 Embase 中进行了系统性文献检索。主要纳入标准是2007年1月至2024年9月期间发表的以心血管疾病结果为终点的随机对照试验,以及关于虚弱特异性治疗效果的数据。收集的数据包括人群特征、干预措施、随访时间、虚弱程度测量、结果率和虚弱亚组治疗效果。由于各研究之间存在异质性,因此未对结果进行汇总:搜索发现了 151 项独特的研究,其中 18 项被纳入。根据 Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0,18 项研究中有 12 项存在低偏倚风险。在两项研究(如有氧运动)中,干预对体弱参与者的疗效优于非体弱参与者;在三项研究(如强化生活方式干预)中,干预对体弱参与者的疗效较差;在七项研究(如普拉格雷)中,干预对不同体弱程度的参与者疗效相似;在六项研究(如依多沙班)中,干预对不同体弱程度的参与者疗效不一。从危险比来看,有些治疗方法对不同体弱程度的患者效果相似,但对体弱患者与非体弱患者的绝对风险降低幅度更大:心血管干预措施可根据患者的虚弱程度提供不同的益处。这些研究结果表明,虚弱程度评估可能有助于优化心血管干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Drugs & Aging
Drugs & Aging 医学-老年医学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
68
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Drugs & Aging delivers essential information on the most important aspects of drug therapy to professionals involved in the care of the elderly. The journal addresses in a timely way the major issues relating to drug therapy in older adults including: the management of specific diseases, particularly those associated with aging, age-related physiological changes impacting drug therapy, drug utilization and prescribing in the elderly, polypharmacy and drug interactions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信