English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background No study has tried to distinguish subjects that become frail due to diseases (frailty related to diseases) or in the absence of specific medical events; in this latter case, it is possible that aging process would act as the main frailty driver (age-related frailty). Objectives To classify subjects according to the origin of physical frailty: age-related frailty, frailty related to diseases, frailty of uncertain origin, and to compare their clinical characteristics. Materials and methods We performed a secondary analysis of the Multidomain Alzheimer Preventive Trial (MAPT), including 195 subjects ≥70 years non-frail at baseline who became frail during a 5-year follow-up (mean age 77.8 years ± 4.7; 70% female). Physical frailty was defined as presenting ≥3 of the 5 Fried criteria: weight loss, exhaustion, weakness, slowness, low physical activity. Clinical files were independently reviewed by two different clinicians using a standardized assessment method in order to classify subjects as: “age-related frailty”, “frailty related to diseases” or “frailty of uncertain origin”. Inconsistencies among the two raters and cases of uncertain frailty were further assessed by two other experienced clinicians. Results From the 195 included subjects, 82 (42%) were classified as age-related frailty, 53 (27%) as frailty related to diseases, and 60 (31%) as frailty of uncertain origin. Patients who became frail due to diseases did not differ from the others groups in terms of functional, cognitive, psychological status and age at baseline, however they presented a higher burden of comorbidity as measured by the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) (8.20 ± 2.69; vs 6.22 ± 2.02 frailty of uncertain origin; vs. 3.25 ± 1.65 age-related frailty). Time to incident frailty (23.4 months ± 12.1 vs. 39.2 ± 19.3 months) and time spent in a pre-frailty condition (17.1 ± 11.4 vs 26.6 ± 16.6 months) were shorter in the group of frailty related to diseases compared to age-related frailty. Orthopedic diseases (n=14, 26%) were the most common pathologies leading to frailty related to diseases, followed by cardiovascular diseases (n=9, 17%) and neurological diseases (n = 8, 15%). Conclusion People classified as age-related frailty and frailty related to diseases presented different frailty-associated indicators. Future research should target the underlying biological cascades leading to these two frailty classifications, since they could ask for distinct strategies of prevention and management.

Can We Distinguish Age-Related Frailty from Frailty Related to Diseases? Data from the MAPT Study