Implications of Frailty in COVID-19.

As the global coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory distress syndrome coronavirus 2 continues to cause higher mortality and hospitalization rates among older adults, strategies such as frailty screening have been suggested for resource allocation and clinical management. Frailty is a physiologic condition characterized by a decreased reserve to stressors and is associated with disability, hospitalization, and death. Measuring frailty can be a useful tool to determine the risk and prognosis of COVID-19 patients in the acute setting, and to provide higher quality of care for vulnerable individuals in the outpatient setting. A literature review was conducted to examine current research regarding frailty and COVID-19. Frailty can inform holistic care of COVID-19 patients, and further investigation is needed to elucidate how measuring frailty should guide treatment and prevention of COVID-19.

Quality of life and intrinsic capacity in patients with post-acute COVID-19 syndrome is in relation to frailty and resilience phenotypes.

The objective of this study was to characterize frailty and resilience in people evaluated for Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome (PACS), in relation to quality of life (QoL) and Intrinsic Capacity (IC). This cross-sectional, observational, study included consecutive people previously hospitalized for severe COVID-19 pneumonia attending Modena (Italy) PACS Clinic from July 2020 to April 2021. Four frailty-resilience phenotypes were built: "fit/resilient", "fit/non-resilient", "frail/resilient" and "frail/non-resilient". Frailty and resilience were defined according to frailty phenotype and Connor Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC-25) respectively. Study outcomes were: QoL assessed by means of Symptoms Short form health survey (SF-36) and health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) and IC by means of a dedicated questionnaire. Their predictors including frailty-resilience phenotypes were explored in logistic regressions. 232 patients were evaluated, median age was 58.0 years. PACS was diagnosed in 173 (74.6%) patients. Scarce resilience was documented in 114 (49.1%) and frailty in 72 (31.0%) individuals. Predictors for SF-36 score < 61.60 were the phenotypes "frail/non-resilient" (OR = 4.69, CI 2.08-10.55), "fit/non-resilient" (OR = 2.79, CI 1.00-7.73). Predictors for EQ-5D-5L < 89.7% were the phenotypes "frail/non-resilient" (OR = 5.93, CI 2.64-13.33) and "frail/resilient" (OR = 5.66, CI 1.93-16.54). Predictors of impaired IC (below the mean score value) were "frail/non-resilient" (OR = 7.39, CI 3.20-17.07), and "fit/non-resilient" (OR = 4.34, CI 2.16-8.71) phenotypes. Resilience and frailty phenotypes may have a different impact on wellness and QoL and may be evaluated in people with PACS to identify vulnerable individuals that require suitable interventions.

The Role of Multidimensional Prognostic Index to Identify Hospitalized Older Adults with COVID-19 Who Can Benefit from Remdesivir Treatment: An Observational, Prospective, Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding the importance of multidimensional frailty to guide clinical decision making for remdesivir use in older patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are largely unexplored. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this research was to evaluate if the Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI), a multidimensional frailty tool based on the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA), may help physicians in identifying older hospitalized patients affected by COVID-19 who might benefit from the use of remdesivir. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective study of older adults hospitalized for COVID-19 in 10 European hospitals, followed-up for 90 days after hospital discharge. A standardized CGA was performed at hospital admission and the MPI was calculated, with a final score ranging between 0 (lowest mortality risk) and 1 (highest mortality risk). We assessed survival with Cox regression, and the impact of remdesivir on mortality (overall and in hospital) with propensity score analysis, stratified by MPI = 0.50. RESULTS: Among 496 older adults hospitalized for COVID-19 (mean age 80 years, female 59.9%), 140 (28.2% of patients) were treated with remdesivir. During the 90 days of follow-up, 175 deaths were reported, 115 in hospital. Remdesivir treatment significantly reduced the risk of overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.54, 95% confidence interval CI 0.35-0.83 in the propensity score analysis) in the sample as whole. Stratifying the population, based on MPI score, the effect was observed only in less frail participants (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22-0.96 in propensity score analysis), but not in frailer subjects. In-hospital mortality was not influenced by remdesivir use. CONCLUSIONS: MPI could help to identify less frail older adults hospitalized for COVID-19 who could benefit more from remdesivir treatment in terms of long-term survival.

Structural equation model of coping and life satisfaction of community-dwelling older people during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 put older individuals at high risk for morbidity and mortality, isolation, reduced coping, and lower satisfaction with life. Many older adults experienced social isolation, fear, and anxiety. We hypothesized that successful coping with these stressors would maintain or improve satisfaction with life, a crucial psychological outcome during the pandemic. Our study investigated relationships between older people's coping and life satisfaction during the pandemic and their optimism, sense of mastery, closeness with spouse, family, and friends, and vulnerabilities from frailty, comorbid diseases, memory problems, and dependencies in instrumental activities of daily living (IADL). METHODS: The study was based on a special COVID-19 sample of 1351 community-dwelling older adults who participated in the 2020 Health and Retirement Survey. A comprehensive structural equation modeling was used to test direct and indirect effects, with life satisfaction as the main outcome and coping as a mediator between the other variables and coping. RESULTS: Most survey respondents were female and between the ages of 65-74 years. They averaged 1.7 chronic conditions, one in seven was frail, about one-third rated their memory as fair or poor, and about one in seven reported one or more difficulties in IADL. As hypothesized-older people with increased sense of mastery and optimism were better able to cope and had greater life satisfaction. In addition, close relationships with friends and with other family members besides the spouse/partner or children contributed to more successful coping, while the interpersonal closeness of all types contributed directly to greater life satisfaction. Finally, older people with more IADL limitations reported greater difficulty coping and lower life satisfaction, and those older people who were frail or had multiple comorbid diseases reported lower life satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Optimism, sense of mastery and closeness with family/friends promotes coping and life satisfaction, whereas frailty and comorbidities make coping more challenging and lead to lower life satisfaction particularly during a pandemic. Our study improves on prior research because of its nationally representative sample and formal specification and testing of a comprehensive theoretical framework.

Study protocol for the use of time series forecasting and risk analyses to investigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospital admissions associated with new-onset disability and frailty in a national, linked electronic health data setting.

INTRODUCTION: Older people were at particular risk of morbidity and mortality during COVID-19. Consequently, they experienced formal (externally imposed) and informal (self-imposed) periods of social isolation and quarantine. This is hypothesised to have led to physical deconditioning, new-onset disability and frailty. Disability and frailty are not routinely collated at population level but are associated with increased risk of falls and fractures, which result in hospital admissions. First, we will examine incidence of falls and fractures during COVID-19 (January 2020-March 2022), focusing on differences between incidence over time against expected rates based on historical data, to determine whether there is evidence of new-onset disability and frailty. Second, we will examine whether those with reported SARS-CoV-2 were at higher risk of falls and fractures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study uses the Office for National Statistics (ONS) Public Health Data Asset, a linked population-level dataset combining administrative health records with sociodemographic data of the 2011 Census and National Immunisation Management System COVID-19 vaccination data for England. Administrative hospital records will be extracted based on specific fracture-centric International Classification of Diseases-10 codes in years preceding COVID-19 (2011-2020). Historical episode frequency will be used to predict expected admissions during pandemic years using time series modelling, if COVID-19 had not occurred. Those predicted admission figures will be compared with actual admissions to assess changes in hospital admissions due to public health measures comprising the pandemic response. Hospital admissions in prepandemic years will be stratified by age and geographical characteristics and averaged, then compared with pandemic year admissions to assess more granular changes. Risk modelling will assess risk of experiencing a fall, fracture or frail fall and fracture, if they have reported a positive case of COVID-19. The combination of these techniques will provide insight into changes in hospital admissions from the COVID-19 pandemic. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has approval from the National Statistician's Data Ethics Advisory Committee (NSDEC(20)12). Results will be made available to other researchers via academic publication and shared via the ONS website.

Resilience: Biological Basis and Clinical Significance - A Perspective Report from the International Conference on Frailty and Sarcopenia Research (ICFSR) Task Force.

The Resilience is a construct receiving growing attention from the scientific community in geriatrics and gerontology. Older adults show extremely heterogeneous (and often unpredictable) responses to stressors. Such heterogeneity can (at least partly) be explained by differences in resilience (i.e., the capacity of the organism to cope with stressors). The International Conference on Frailty and Sarcopenia Research (ICFSR) Task Force met in Boston (MA,USA) on April 20, 2022 to discuss the biological and clinical significance of resilience in older adults. The identification of persons with low resilience and the prompt intervention in this at-risk population may be critical to develop and implement preventive strategies against adverse events. Unfortunately, to date, it is still challenging to capture resilience, especially due to its dynamic nature encompassing biological, clinical, subjective, and socioeconomic factors. Opportunities to dynamically measure resilience were discussed during the ICFSR Task Force meeting, emphasizing potential biomarkers and areas of intervention. This article reports the results of the meeting and may serve to support future actions in the field.

Comparison of two frailty screening tools in older patients with colorectal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Geriatric assessment (GA) is widely used to detect vulnerability in older patients. As this process is time-consuming, prescreening tools have been developed to identify patients at risk for frailty. We aimed to assess whether the Geriatric 8 (G8) or the Korean Cancer Study Group Geriatric Score (KG-7) shows better performance in identifying patients who are in need of full GA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A consecutive series of patients aged ≥ 60 years with colorectal cancer were included. The sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for the G8 and the KG-7 using the results of GA as the reference standard. ROC(Receiver Operating Characteristic) was used to evaluate the accuracy of the G8 and the KG-7. RESULTS: One hundred four patients were enrolled. A total of 40.4% of patients were frail according to GA, and 42.3% and 50.0% of patients were frail based on the G8 and the KG-7, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the G8 were 90.5% (95% CI: 77.4-97.3%) and 90.3% (95% CI: 80.1-96.4%), respectively. For the KG-7, the sensitivity and specificity were 83.3% (95% CI: 68.6-93.0%) and 72.6% (95% CI: 59.8-83.1%), respectively. Compared to the KG-7, the G8 had a higher predictive accuracy (AUC: (95% CI): 0.90 (0.83-0.95) vs. 0.78 (0.69-0.85); p < 0.01). By applying the G8 and the KG-7, 60 and 52 patients would not need a GA assessment, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both the G8 and the KG-7 showed a great ability to detect frailty in older patients with colorectal cancer. In this population, compared to the KG-7, the G8 had a better performance in identifying those in need of a full Geriatric Assessment.