The physical frailty syndrome as a transition from homeostatic symphony to cacophony.

Frailty in aging marks a state of decreased reserves resulting in increased vulnerability to adverse outcomes when exposed to stressors. This Perspective synthesizes the evidence on the aging-related pathophysiology underpinning the clinical presentation of physical frailty as a phenotype of a clinical syndrome that is distinct from the cumulative-deficit-based frailty index. We focus on integrating the converging evidence on the conceptualization of physical frailty as a state, largely independent of chronic diseases, that emerges when the dysregulation of multiple interconnected physiological and biological systems crosses a threshold to critical dysfunction, severely compromising homeostasis. Our exegesis posits that the physiology underlying frailty is a critically dysregulated complex dynamical system. This conceptual framework implies that interventions such as physical activity that have multisystem effects are more promising to remedy frailty than interventions targeted at replenishing single systems. We then consider how this framework can drive future research to further understanding, prevention and treatment of frailty, which will likely preserve health and resilience in aging populations.

An overview of the resilience world: Proceedings of the American Geriatrics Society and National Institute on Aging State of Resilience Science Conference.

Resilience, which relates to one's ability to respond to stressors, typically declines with age and the development of comorbid conditions in older organisms. Although progress has been made to improve our understanding of resilience in older adults, disciplines have employed different frameworks and definitions to study various aspects of older adults' response to acute or chronic stressors. "Overview of the Resilience World: State of the Science," a bench-to-bedside conference on October 12-13, 2022, was sponsored by the American Geriatrics Society and National Institute on Aging. This conference, summarized in this report, explored commonalities and differences among the frameworks of resilience most commonly used in aging research in the three domains of resilience: physical, cognitive, and psychosocial. These three main domains are intertwined, and stressors in one domain can lead to effects in other domains. The themes of the conference sessions included underlying contributors to resilience, the dynamic nature of resilience throughout the life span, and the role of resilience in health equity. Although participants did not agree on a single definition of "resilience(s)," they identified common core elements of a definition that can be applied to all domains and noted unique features that are domain specific. The presentations and discussions led to recommendations for new longitudinal studies of the impact of exposures to stressors on resilience in older adults, the use of new and existing cohort study data, natural experiments (including the COVID-19 pandemic), and preclinical models for resilience research, as well as translational research to bring findings on resilience to patient care.

Barriers to and solutions for representative inclusion across the lifespan and in life course research: The need for structural competency highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Exclusion of special populations (older adults; pregnant women, children, and adolescents; individuals of lower socioeconomic status and/or who live in rural communities; people from racial and ethnic minority groups; individuals from sexual or gender minority groups; and individuals with disabilities) in research is a pervasive problem, despite efforts and policy changes by the National Institutes of Health and other organizations. These populations are adversely impacted by social determinants of health (SDOH) that reduce access and ability to participate in biomedical research. In March 2020, the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute hosted the "Lifespan and Life Course Research: integrating strategies" "Un-Meeting" to discuss barriers and solutions to underrepresentation of special populations in biomedical research. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted how exclusion of representative populations in research can increase health inequities. We applied findings of this meeting to perform a literature review of barriers and solutions to recruitment and retention of representative populations in research and to discuss how findings are important to research conducted during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. We highlight the role of SDOH, review barriers and solutions to underrepresentation, and discuss the importance of a structural competency framework to improve research participation and retention among special populations.

Urban-Rural Differences in Health Care Utilization and COVID-19 Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: Two studies in Pennsylvania aimed to determine whether community type and community socioeconomic deprivation (CSD) 1) modified associations between type 2 diabetes (hereinafter, diabetes) and COVID-19 hospitalization outcomes, and 2) influenced health care utilization among individuals with diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The hospitalization study evaluated a retrospective cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through 2020 for COVID-19 outcomes: death, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, elevated D-dimer, and elevated troponin level. We used adjusted logistic regression models, adding interaction terms to evaluate effect modification by community type (township, borough, or city census tract) and CSD. The utilization study included patients with diabetes and a clinical encounter between 2017 and 2020. Autoregressive integrated moving average time-series models evaluated changes in weekly rates of emergency department and outpatient visits, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) laboratory tests, and antihyperglycemic medication orders from 2018 to 2020. RESULTS: In the hospitalization study, of 2,751 patients hospitalized for COVID-19, 1,020 had diabetes, which was associated with ICU admission and elevated troponin. Associations did not differ by community type or CSD. In the utilization study, among 93,401 patients with diabetes, utilization measures decreased in March 2020. Utilization increased in July, and then began to stabilize or decline through the end of 2020. Changes in HbA1c tests and medication order trends during the pandemic differed by community type and CSD. CONCLUSION: Diabetes was associated with selected outcomes among individuals hospitalized for COVID-19, but these did not differ by community features. Utilization trajectories among individuals with diabetes during the pandemic were influenced by community type and CSD and could be used to identify individuals at risk of gaps in diabetes care.

Sex and Gender Differences in Testing, Hospital Admission, Clinical Presentation, and Drivers of Severe Outcomes From COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Males experience increased severity of illness and mortality from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) compared with females, but the mechanisms of male susceptibility are unclear. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of SARS-CoV-2 testing and admission data at 5 hospitals in the Maryland/Washington DC area. Using age-stratified logistic regression models, we quantified the impact of male sex on the risk of the composite outcome of severe disease or death (World Health Organization score 5-8) and tested the impact of demographics, comorbidities, health behaviors, and laboratory inflammatory markers on the sex effect. RESULTS: Among 213 175 SARS-CoV-2 tests, despite similar positivity rates, males in age strata between 18 and 74 years were more frequently hospitalized. For the 2626 hospitalized individuals, clinical inflammatory markers (interleukin-6, C-reactive protein, ferritin, absolute lymphocyte count, and neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio) were more favorable for females than males (P < .001). Among 18-49-year-olds, male sex carried a higher risk of severe outcomes, both early (odds ratio [OR], 3.01; 95% CI, 1.75 to 5.18) and at peak illness during hospitalization (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.78 to 3.74). Despite multiple differences in demographics, presentation features, comorbidities, and health behaviors, these variables did not change the association of male sex with severe disease. Only clinical inflammatory marker values modified the sex effect, reducing the OR for severe outcomes in males aged 18-49 years to 1.81 (95% CI, 1.00 to 3.26) early and 1.39 (95% CI, 0.93 to 2.08) at peak illness. CONCLUSIONS: Higher inflammatory laboratory test values were associated with increased risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 for males. A sex-specific inflammatory response to SARS-CoV-2 infection may underlie the sex differences in outcomes.

Comparison of Time to Clinical Improvement With vs Without Remdesivir Treatment in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

Importance: Clinical effectiveness data on remdesivir are urgently needed, especially among diverse populations and in combination with other therapies. Objective: To examine whether remdesivir administered with or without corticosteroids for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with more rapid clinical improvement in a racially/ethnically diverse population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective comparative effectiveness research study was conducted from March 4 to August 29, 2020, in a 5-hospital health system in the Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, DC, area. Of 2483 individuals with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection assessed by polymerase chain reaction, those who received remdesivir were matched to infected individuals who did not receive remdesivir using time-invariant covariates (age, sex, race/ethnicity, Charlson Comorbidity Index, body mass index, and do-not-resuscitate or do-not-intubate orders) and time-dependent covariates (ratio of peripheral blood oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen, blood pressure, pulse, temperature, respiratory rate, C-reactive protein level, complete white blood cell count, lymphocyte count, albumin level, alanine aminotransferase level, glomerular filtration rate, dimerized plasmin fragment D [D-dimer] level, and oxygen device). An individual in the remdesivir group with k days of treatment was matched to a control patient who stayed in the hospital at least k days (5 days maximum) beyond the matching day. Exposures: Remdesivir treatment with or without corticosteroid administration. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was rate of clinical improvement (hospital discharge or decrease of 2 points on the World Health Organization severity score), and the secondary outcome, mortality at 28 days. An additional outcome was clinical improvement and time to death associated with combined remdesivir and corticosteroid treatment. Results: Of 2483 consecutive admissions, 342 individuals received remdesivir, 184 of whom also received corticosteroids and 158 of whom received remdesivir alone. For these 342 patients, the median age was 60 years (interquartile range, 46-69 years), 189 (55.3%) were men, and 276 (80.7%) self-identified as non-White race/ethnicity. Remdesivir recipients had a shorter time to clinical improvement than matched controls without remdesivir treatment (median, 5.0 days [interquartile range, 4.0-8.0 days] vs 7.0 days [interquartile range, 4.0-10.0 days]; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.22-1.79]). Remdesivir recipients had a 28-day mortality rate of 7.7% (22 deaths) compared with 14.0% (40 deaths) among matched controls, but this difference was not statistically significant in the time-to-death analysis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.38-1.28). The addition of corticosteroids to remdesivir was not associated with a reduced hazard of death at 28 days (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.67-5.57). Conclusions and Relevance: In this comparative effectiveness research study of adults hospitalized with COVID-19, receipt of remdesivir was associated with faster clinical improvement in a cohort of predominantly non-White patients. Remdesivir plus corticosteroid administration did not reduce the time to death compared with remdesivir administered alone.

Development of Severe COVID-19 Adaptive Risk Predictor (SCARP), a Calculator to Predict Severe Disease or Death in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Predicting the clinical trajectory of individual patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is challenging but necessary to inform clinical care. The majority of COVID-19 prognostic tools use only data present upon admission and do not incorporate changes occurring after admission. OBJECTIVE: To develop the Severe COVID-19 Adaptive Risk Predictor (SCARP) (https://rsconnect.biostat.jhsph.edu/covid_trajectory/), a novel tool that can provide dynamic risk predictions for progression from moderate disease to severe illness or death in patients with COVID-19 at any time within the first 14 days of their hospitalization. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTINGS: Five hospitals in Maryland and Washington, D.C. PATIENTS: Patients who were hospitalized between 5 March and 4 December 2020 with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) confirmed by nucleic acid test and symptomatic disease. MEASUREMENTS: A clinical registry for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was the primary data source; data included demographic characteristics, admission source, comorbid conditions, time-varying vital signs, laboratory measurements, and clinical severity. Random forest for survival, longitudinal, and multivariate (RF-SLAM) data analysis was applied to predict the 1-day and 7-day risks for progression to severe disease or death for any given day during the first 14 days of hospitalization. RESULTS: Among 3163 patients admitted with moderate COVID-19, 228 (7%) became severely ill or died in the next 24 hours; an additional 355 (11%) became severely ill or died in the next 7 days. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) for 1-day risk predictions for progression to severe disease or death was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.88 to 0.90) and 0.89 (CI, 0.87 to 0.91) during the first and second weeks of hospitalization, respectively. The AUC for 7-day risk predictions for progression to severe disease or death was 0.83 (CI, 0.83 to 0.84) and 0.87 (CI, 0.86 to 0.89) during the first and second weeks of hospitalization, respectively. LIMITATION: The SCARP tool was developed by using data from a single health system. CONCLUSION: Using the predictive power of RF-SLAM and longitudinal data from more than 3000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, an interactive tool was developed that rapidly and accurately provides the probability of an individual patient's progression to severe illness or death on the basis of readily available clinical information. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Hopkins inHealth and COVID-19 Administrative Supplement for the HHS Region 3 Treatment Center from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.

Patient Trajectories Among Persons Hospitalized for COVID-19 : A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Risk factors for progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to severe disease or death are underexplored in U.S. cohorts. OBJECTIVE: To determine the factors on hospital admission that are predictive of severe disease or death from COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. SETTING: Five hospitals in the Maryland and Washington, DC, area. PATIENTS: 832 consecutive COVID-19 admissions from 4 March to 24 April 2020, with follow-up through 27 June 2020. MEASUREMENTS: Patient trajectories and outcomes, categorized by using the World Health Organization COVID-19 disease severity scale. Primary outcomes were death and a composite of severe disease or death. RESULTS: Median patient age was 64 years (range, 1 to 108 years); 47% were women, 40% were Black, 16% were Latinx, and 21% were nursing home residents. Among all patients, 131 (16%) died and 694 (83%) were discharged (523 [63%] had mild to moderate disease and 171 [20%] had severe disease). Of deaths, 66 (50%) were nursing home residents. Of 787 patients admitted with mild to moderate disease, 302 (38%) progressed to severe disease or death: 181 (60%) by day 2 and 238 (79%) by day 4. Patients had markedly different probabilities of disease progression on the basis of age, nursing home residence, comorbid conditions, obesity, respiratory symptoms, respiratory rate, fever, absolute lymphocyte count, hypoalbuminemia, troponin level, and C-reactive protein level and the interactions among these factors. Using only factors present on admission, a model to predict in-hospital disease progression had an area under the curve of 0.85, 0.79, and 0.79 at days 2, 4, and 7, respectively. LIMITATION: The study was done in a single health care system. CONCLUSION: A combination of demographic and clinical variables is strongly associated with severe COVID-19 disease or death and their early onset. The COVID-19 Inpatient Risk Calculator (CIRC), using factors present on admission, can inform clinical and resource allocation decisions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Hopkins inHealth and COVID-19 Administrative Supplement for the HHS Region 3 Treatment Center from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.