Dataset Information

A Comparison of Two Mouse Frailty Assessment Tools.

ABSTRACT: The mouse clinical frailty index and the mouse frailty phenotype assessment are two recently developed tools used to assess frailty in mice. The objectives of this study were to investigate whether the same mice are identified as frail with both tools and to examine the association of each of the assessment tools with age and frailty-related outcomes. Frailty was measured using both tools in old (~24 months; n = 36) C57BL/6 male mice. After 2 weeks, blood pressure and heart rate were measured and serum samples were collected for analysis of alanine aminotransferase, creatinine, and albumin levels. The mouse frailty phenotype assessment identified no mice as frail but modification of the assessment tool identified six mice as frail. The mouse clinical frailty index identified 16 mice as frail and the agreement between the two scales was 50.0%. Increasing clinical frailty index scores were correlated with low serum alanine aminotransferase, as well as decreased heart rate, and reduced heart rate variance. We conclude that, consistent with equivalent frailty assessment scales in humans, both tools have value but do not necessarily identify the same mice as frail.

SUBMITTER: Kane AE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5861875 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Comparison of Two Mouse Frailty Assessment Tools.

Kane Alice E AE Huizer-Pajkos Aniko A Mach John J Mitchell Sarah J SJ de Cabo Rafael R Le Couteur David G DG Howlett Susan E SE Hilmer Sarah N SN

The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences 20170701 7

The mouse clinical frailty index and the mouse frailty phenotype assessment are two recently developed tools used to assess frailty in mice. The objectives of this study were to investigate whether the same mice are identified as frail with both tools and to examine the association of each of the assessment tools with age and frailty-related outcomes. Frailty was measured using both tools in old (~24 months; n = 36) C57BL/6 male mice. After 2 weeks, blood pressure and heart rate were measured an ...[more]

PMID: 28549083

Similar Datasets

Project description:Rationale & objectiveFrailty represents a loss of physiologic reserve across multiple biological systems, confers a higher risk of adverse health outcomes, and is highly prevalent among people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We evaluated the measurement properties of frailty tools used in CKD and summarized the association of frailty with death and hospitalization.Study designSystematic review and meta-analysis.Setting & study populationsStudies assessing multidimensional frailty tools in adults at any stage of CKD and evaluating a measurement property of interest as per the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments taxonomy.Selection criteria for studiesObservational studies and randomized trials.Data extractionRisk and precision measurements; measurement properties.Analytical approachThe Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment was the clinical standard for frailty identification. We pooled data using random effects models or summarized with narrative synthesis when data were too heterogenous to pool.ResultsWe included 105 studies with data for at least one of the following: discriminative (n = 84; 80%), convergent (n = 20; 19%), and criterion validity (n = 2; 2%); responsiveness (n = 9; 9%) and reliability (n = 1; 0.1%). For the Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP), the pooled adjusted HR (aHR) for mortality was 2.01 (95% confidence intervals [CI], 1.35-2.98; P = 0.001; I 2 = 58%) and 1.89 (95% CI, 1.25-2.85; P = 0.002; I 2 = 0%) for hospitalization in kidney failure (KF) populations. The pooled aHR for the Clinical Frailty Scale for mortality in pre-frail versus non-frail was 1.75 (95% CI, 1.17-2.60; I 2 = 26%) and 2.20 (95% CI, 1.00-4.80; I 2 = 66%) in frail versus non-frail. The Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illness, and Loss of weight scale showed consistent discriminative validity for higher mortality in non-dialysis CKD. The modified FFP (self-reported) showed acceptable discriminative validity and agreement with the FFP in patients with KF. In CKD and KF populations, agreement between clinicians' subjective impression of frailty and frailty tools was low.LimitationsFew studies compared the accuracy of frailty tools to the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment. Only 1 study reported reliability. Studies were of overall low-moderate quality.ConclusionsThe FFP and Clinical Frailty Scale showed acceptable discriminant validity for clinical outcomes, and the modified FFP is an alternative tool to use if direct measurements are not feasible. The evidence does not support the use of clinicians' subjective impression to identify frailty.

Project description:IntroductionFrailty has consistently demonstrated associations with poorer healthcare outcomes. Vascular guidelines have recognised the importance of frailty assessment. However, an abundance of frailty tools and a lack of prospective studies confirming suitability of routine frailty assessment in clinical practice has delayed the uptake of these guidelines. The Frailty Assessment in Vascular OUtpatients Review study speaks to this evidence gap. The primary aim is to assess feasibility of implementing routine frailty assessment in a reproducible outpatient setting. Secondary objectives include comparing prognostic values and interuser agreement across five frailty assessment tools.Methods and analysisThis single-centre prospective cohort study of feasibility is conducted in a rapid-referral vascular surgery clinic, serving a population of 2 million. Adults with capacity (>18 years), attending a clinic for any reason, are eligible for inclusion. Five assessments are completed by patient (Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and Frail NonDisabled Questionnaire), clinician (CFS, Healthcare Improvement Scotland FRAIL tool and 'Initial Clinical Evaluation') and researcher (11-item modified Frailty Index). Consistent with feasibility objectives, outcome measures include recruitment rates, frailty assessment completion rates, time-to-complete assessments and interuser variability. Electronic follow-up at 30 days and 1 year will assess home-time and mortality as prognostic indicators. Patients treated surgically/endovascularly will undergo additional 30-day and 1-year postoperative follow-up, outcome measures include: surgical procedure, mortality, complications (according to Clavien-Dindo Classification), length of stay, readmission rates, non-home discharge, home-time, higher social care requirements on discharge and amputation-free survival. Prognostic value will be compared by area under receiver operating characteristic curves. Continuous outcome variables will be analysed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. Interuser agreement will be compared by percentage agreement in Cohen's kappa coefficient.  ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is sponsored by National Health Service Greater Glasgow and Clyde (R&IUGN23CE014). London-Riverside REC (23/PR/0062) granted ethical approval. Results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed vascular surgery and geriatric medicine themed journals and presentation at similar scientific conferences.Trials registration numberNCT06040658. Stage of study: pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundFrailty is associated with adverse events in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Our aim was to compare the prognostic value of four frailty scales in patients aged ≥ 65 years hospitalized with ACS in a cardiac care unit (CCU).MethodsPatients aged ≥ 65 years with ACS were included. Frailty was assessed using the Fried frailty scale (reference standard), the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS), the FRAIL scale, and the Clinical frailty scale (CFS). The primary end point was all-cause mortality and the secondary end point was unscheduled rehospitalization.ResultsOne hundred and seventy four patients aged ≥ 65 years with ACS were recruited. The median follow-up was 637.5 days. Frailty was identified in 41.4%, 40.2%, 39.1% and 36.3% patients by the Fried frailty scale, EFS, FRAIL scale and CFS, respectively. The agreement coefficients were 0.88, 0.86, and 0.79 for the FRAIL scale, EFS and CFS, respectively. In the Cox regression model, frailty was associated with all-cause mortality regardless of the scale used (univariate: hazard ratio [HR] 95% CI = 10.5, 2.4-46.8 Fried frailty scale; 12.0, 2.7-53.4 FRAIL scale; 7.1, 2.0-25.2 EFS; 8.3, 2.4-29.6 CFS. Multivariate: HR = 5.1, 1.1-23.8 Fried frailty scale; 5.7, 1.2-26.8 FRAIL scale; 3.7, 1.0-14.0 EFS; 4.2, 1.1-15.9 CFS). The FRAIL scale had the highest HR. In the univariate analysis, frailty was associated with unscheduled rehospitalization (HR = 3.2, 1.7-6.0 Fried frailty scale; 3.4, 1.8-6.3 FRAIL scale; 3.5, 1.8-6.6 EFS; 3.1, 1.7-5.8 CFS). In the multivariate analysis, only the EFS independently predicted unscheduled rehospitalization (HR = 2.2, 1.1-4.63).ConclusionsFrailty assessed by the Fried frailty scale, FRAIL scale, EFS and CFS is associated with all-cause mortality and unscheduled rehospitalization in elderly patients hospitalized in a CCU with ACS. The adjusted HR of the FRAIL scale for all-cause mortality was the highest among the scales compared, whereas the EFS was an independent predictor of unscheduled rehospitalization. These data should be taken into consideration when choosing a frailty assessment tool.

Dataset Information

A Comparison of Two Mouse Frailty Assessment Tools.

Publications

A Comparison of Two Mouse Frailty Assessment Tools.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets