Implementation of a virtual community of practice to promote the empowerment of middle-aged people with multimorbidity: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Empowering people living with multimorbidity (multiple chronic conditions) to gain greater confidence in managing their health can enhance their quality of life. Education focused on self-management is a key tool for fostering patient empowerment and is mostly provided on an individual basis. Virtual communities of practice (VCoP) present a unique opportunity for online education in chronic condition self-management within a social context. This research aims to evaluate the effectiveness/cost-effectiveness of individualised, online self-management education compared with VCoP among middle-aged individuals living with multiple chronic conditions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: People aged 30-60, living with ≥2 chronic conditions and receiving care in primary care (PC) centres and outpatient hospital-based clinics in Madrid and Canary Islands will enrol in an 18-month parallel-design, blinded (intervention assessment and data analysts), pragmatic (adhering to the intention-to-treat principle), individually randomised trial. The trial will compare two 12-month web-based educational offers of identical content; one delivered individually (control) and the other with online social interaction (VCoP, intervention). Using repeated measures mixed linear models, with the patient as random effect and allocation groups and time per group as fixed effects, we will estimate between-arm differences in the change in Patient Activation Measure from baseline to 12 months (primary endpoint), including measurements at 6-month and 18-month follow-up. Other outcomes will include measures of depression and anxiety, treatment burden, quality of life. In addition to a process evaluation of the VCoP, we will conduct an economic evaluation estimating the relative cost-effectiveness of the VCoP from the perspectives of both the National Health System and the Community. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial was approved by Clinical Research Ethics Committees of Gregorio Marañón University Hospital in Madrid/Nuestra Señora Candelaria University Hospital in Santa Cruz de Tenerife. The results will be disseminated through workshops, policy briefs, peer-reviewed publications and local/international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06046326.

Role of sarcopenia in the frailty transitions in older adults: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Frailty and sarcopenia are age-associated syndromes that have been associated with the risk of several adverse events, mainly functional decline and death, that usually coexist. However, the potential role of one of them (sarcopenia) in modulating some of those adverse events associated to the other one (frailty) has not been explored. The aim of this work is to assess the role of sarcopenia within the frailty transitions and mortality in older people. METHODS: Data from the Toledo Study of Healthy Aging (TSHA) were used. TSHA is a cohort of community-dwelling older adults ≥65. Frailty was assessed according with the Frailty Phenotype (FP) and the Frailty Trait Scale-5 (FTS5) at baseline and at follow-up. Basal sarcopenia status was measured with the standardized Foundation for the National Institutes of Health criteria. Fisher's exact test and logistic regression model were used to determine if sarcopenia modified the transition of frailty states (median follow-up of 2.99 years) and Cox proportional hazard model was used for assessing mortality. RESULTS: There were 1538 participants (74.73 ± 5.73; 45.51% men) included. Transitions from robustness to prefrailty and frailty according to FP were more frequent in sarcopenic than in non-sarcopenic participants (32.37% vs. 15.18%, P ≤ 0.001; 5.76% vs. 1.12%; P ≤ 0.001, respectively) and from prefrailty-to-frailty (12.68% vs. 4.27%; P = 0.0026). Improvement from prefrail-to-robust and remaining robust was more frequent in non-sarcopenic participants (52.56% vs. 33.80%, P ≤ 0.001; 80.18% vs 61.15%, P ≤ 0.001, respectively). When classified by FTS5, this was also the case for the transition from non-frail-to-frail (25.91% vs. 4.47%, P ≤ 0.001) and for remaining stable as non-frail (91.25% vs. 70.98%, P ≤ 0.001). Sarcopenia was associated with an increased risk of progression from robustness-to-prefrailty [odds ratio (OR) 2.34 (95% confidence interval, CI) (1.51, 3.63); P ≤ 0.001], from prefrailty-to-frailty [OR(95% CI) 2.50 (1.08, 5.79); P = 0.033] (FP), and from non-frail-to-frail [OR(95% CI) 4.73 (2.94, 7.62); P-value ≤ 0.001]. Sarcopenia does not seem to modify the risk of death associated with a poor frailty status (hazard ratios (HR, 95%) P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Transitions within frailty status, but not the risk of death associated to frailty, are modulated by the presence of sarcopenia.

Associations between frailty trajectories and frailty status and adverse outcomes in community-dwelling older adults.

BACKGROUND: The association between frailty and adverse outcomes has been clearly defined. Frailty is associated with age, but different frailty evolution patterns might determine the incidence of adverse outcomes at older ages. So far, few observational studies have examined how distinct frailty trajectories could be associated with differences in the risk of adverse events and assessing whether frailty trajectories could define risk of death, hospitalization, worsening, and incident disability better than one-off assessment. Our hypothesis is that prospective increases in frailty levels are associated with higher risk of adverse events compared with subjects that prospectively decreased frailty levels. METHODS: Participants' data were taken from the Toledo Study of Healthy Ageing. Frailty was evaluated using the Frailty Trait Scale 5 (FTS5), being 0 the lower (the most robust) and 50 the highest (the frailest) score. FTS5 scores at baseline and follow-up (median 5.04 years) were used to construct frailty trajectories according to group-based trajectory modelling (GBTM). Multivariate Cox proportional hazard and logistic regression models were used to explore associations between frailty status and trajectory membership and the adverse outcomes. Deaths were ascertained through the Spanish National Death Index. Disability was evaluated through the Katz Index. Hospitalization was defined as first admission to Toledo Hospital. RESULTS: Nine hundred and seventy-five older adults (mean age 73.14 ± 4.69; 43.38% men) were included. GBTM identified five FTS5 trajectories: worsening from non-frailty (WNF), improving to non-frailty (INF), developing frailty (DF), remaining frail (RF), and increasing frailty (IF). Subjects belonging to trajectories of increasing frailty scores or showing consistently higher frailty levels presented with an increased risk of mortality {DF [hazard ratio (HR), 95% confidence interval (CI)] = 2.01 [1.21-3.32]; RF = 1.92 [1.18-3.12]; IF = 2.67 [1.48-4.81]}, incident [DF (HR, 95% CI) = 2.06 (1.11-3.82); RF = 2.29 (1.30-4.03); IF = 3.55 (1.37-9.24)], and worsening disability [DF (HR, 95% CI) = 2.11 (1.19-3.76); RF = 2.14 (1.26-3.64); IF = 2.21 (1.06-4.62)], compared with subjects prospectively showing decreases in frailty levels or maintaining low FTS5 scores. A secondary result was a significant dose-response relationship between baseline FTS5 score and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Belonging to trajectories of prospectively increasing/consistently high frailty scores over time are associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes compared with maintaining low or reducing frailty scores. Our results support the dynamic nature of frailty and the potential benefit of interventions aimed at reducing its levels on relevant and burdensome adverse outcomes.