Frailty Assessment Tools Influence the Outcome Associations Among Patients With Diabetes

Jui Wang PhD , Szu-Ying Lee MD , Chia-Ter Chao MD, PhD , Jenq-Wen Huang MD, PhD , Kuo-Liong Chien MD, PhD
{"title":"Frailty Assessment Tools Influence the Outcome Associations Among Patients With Diabetes","authors":"Jui Wang PhD ,&nbsp;Szu-Ying Lee MD ,&nbsp;Chia-Ter Chao MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Jenq-Wen Huang MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Kuo-Liong Chien MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jacasi.2025.02.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Frailty, characterized by aging-associated physiological reserve decline, leads to functional loss and adverse outcomes. Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have a high frailty risk. However, whether frailty assessment results derived from different tools diverge regarding their outcome correlations remains unclear.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>The authors analyzed associations between different frailty assessment results and DM patients’ outcomes</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Between 2008 and 2016, adults (age &gt;40 years) with type 2 DM were identified from the National Taiwan University Hospital Integrated Medical Database. The frailty assessment was performed using modified FRAIL scale and frailty index. Cox proportional hazard and Poisson regression analyses were used to determine the relationship between frailty and multiple outcomes after multivariate adjustment.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In total, 30,012 patients (mean 64.1 years, 45.4% women) with type 2 DM were included. The 2 frailty assessments were moderately positively correlated (r = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.48-0.49). After a median of 7.1 years (Q1-Q3: 3.9-10.4 years) of follow-up, FRAIL-identified mild and moderate-to-severe frailty did not correlate with a high mortality probability, but frailty index–identified severe and moderate frailty did. However, FRAIL-identified moderate-to-severe frailty correlated with a higher probability of all-cause hospitalization (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 1.2; 95% CI: 1.09-1.32), intensive care unit admission (IRR: 4.19; 95% CI: 1.69-10.38), and cardiovascular hospitalization (IRR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.28-1.66), whereas frailty index–identified mild, moderate, and severe frailty increased the probability of all-cause and cardiovascular hospitalizations only.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>We observed major discrepancies in outcome associations between FRAIL scale and frailty index among DM patients. Carefully selecting tools for measuring DM-associated frailty is important.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":73529,"journal":{"name":"JACC. Asia","volume":"5 6","pages":"Pages 799-810"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JACC. Asia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772374725001747","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Frailty, characterized by aging-associated physiological reserve decline, leads to functional loss and adverse outcomes. Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have a high frailty risk. However, whether frailty assessment results derived from different tools diverge regarding their outcome correlations remains unclear.

Objectives

The authors analyzed associations between different frailty assessment results and DM patients’ outcomes

Methods

Between 2008 and 2016, adults (age >40 years) with type 2 DM were identified from the National Taiwan University Hospital Integrated Medical Database. The frailty assessment was performed using modified FRAIL scale and frailty index. Cox proportional hazard and Poisson regression analyses were used to determine the relationship between frailty and multiple outcomes after multivariate adjustment.

Results

In total, 30,012 patients (mean 64.1 years, 45.4% women) with type 2 DM were included. The 2 frailty assessments were moderately positively correlated (r = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.48-0.49). After a median of 7.1 years (Q1-Q3: 3.9-10.4 years) of follow-up, FRAIL-identified mild and moderate-to-severe frailty did not correlate with a high mortality probability, but frailty index–identified severe and moderate frailty did. However, FRAIL-identified moderate-to-severe frailty correlated with a higher probability of all-cause hospitalization (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 1.2; 95% CI: 1.09-1.32), intensive care unit admission (IRR: 4.19; 95% CI: 1.69-10.38), and cardiovascular hospitalization (IRR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.28-1.66), whereas frailty index–identified mild, moderate, and severe frailty increased the probability of all-cause and cardiovascular hospitalizations only.

Conclusions

We observed major discrepancies in outcome associations between FRAIL scale and frailty index among DM patients. Carefully selecting tools for measuring DM-associated frailty is important.
衰弱评估工具影响糖尿病患者预后相关性:一项回顾性队列研究。
背景:衰弱以衰老相关的生理储备下降为特征,可导致功能丧失和不良后果。糖尿病(DM)患者有很高的衰弱风险。然而,来自不同工具的衰弱评估结果是否在结果相关性方面存在分歧仍不清楚。目的:作者分析不同衰弱评估结果与糖尿病患者预后之间的关系。方法:2008年至2016年,从国立台湾大学医院综合医学数据库中筛选出2型糖尿病成人(年龄0 ~ 40岁)。采用改良体弱量表和体弱指数进行体弱评价。多因素调整后,采用Cox比例风险分析和泊松回归分析确定脆弱性与多个结局之间的关系。结果:共纳入30,012例2型糖尿病患者(平均64.1岁,45.4%为女性)。两项衰弱评估呈中度正相关(r = 0.49;95% ci: 0.48-0.49)。中位随访7.1年(Q1-Q3: 3.9-10.4年)后,虚弱指数确定的轻度和中度至重度虚弱与高死亡率不相关,但虚弱指数确定的重度和中度虚弱与高死亡率相关。然而,frail鉴定的中度至重度虚弱与更高的全因住院概率相关(发病率比[IRR]: 1.2;95% CI: 1.09-1.32),重症监护病房入院(IRR 4.19;95% CI: 1.69-10.38)和心血管住院(IRR: 1.46;95% CI: 1.28-1.66),而虚弱指数确定的轻度、中度和重度虚弱仅增加了全因住院和心血管住院的可能性。结论:我们观察到糖尿病患者虚弱量表和虚弱指数之间的结果相关性存在重大差异。仔细选择测量dm相关脆弱性的工具是很重要的。
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
JACC. Asia
JACC. Asia Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信