Frailty and socioeconomic position: A systematic review of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Frailty, an age-related state of reduced physiological reserve, is often associated with lower socio-economic position (SEP). This systematic review synthesised observational studies assessing (i) the association between SEP and frailty prevalence; (ii) how changes in frailty status over time vary by SEP; and (iii) whether the association between frailty and clinical outcomes is modified by SEP. METHODS: We searched three electronic databases from 2001 to 2023. We included observational studies measuring early-, mid-, and late-life indicators of SEP (education, income, wealth, housing, occupation, and area-based measures of multiple deprivation) and frailty (assessed using any validated measure). Screening and extraction were performed in duplicate. Findings were synthesised using narrative synthesis. RESULTS: We included 383 studies reporting findings from 265 independent samples/cohorts across 64 countries. Lower SEP was associated with higher frailty prevalence across all indicators (childhood deprivation 7/8 studies, education 227/248, occupation 28/32, housing 8/9, income 98/108, wealth 39/44 and area-based deprivation 32/34). Lower SEP was also associated with higher frailty incidence (27/30), with greater odds of transitioning towards a more severe frailty state (35/43), lower odds of frailty reversion (7/11), and (in some studies) with more rapid accumulation of deficits (7/15). The relationship between frailty and mortality was not modified by SEP. INTERPRETATION: Preventative measures across multiple levels of individual and structural inequality are likely to be required to reduce the rising levels of frailty. Resourcing of interventions and services to support people living with frailty should be proportionate to needs in the population to avoid widening existing health inequalities.

The relationship between frailty and social vulnerability: a systematic review.

Both frailty (reduced physiological reserve) and social vulnerability (scarcity of adequate social connections, support, or interaction) become more common as people age and are associated with adverse consequences. Analyses of the relationships between these constructs can be limited by the wide range of measures used to assess them. In this systematic review, we synthesised 130 observational studies assessing the association between frailty and social vulnerability, the bidirectional longitudinal relationships between constructs, and their joint associations with adverse health outcomes. Frailty, across assessment type, was associated with increased loneliness and social isolation, perceived inadequacy of social support, and reduced social participation. Each of these social vulnerability components was also associated with more rapid progression of frailty and lower odds of improvement compared with the absence of that social vulnerability component (eg, more rapid frailty progression in people with social isolation vs those who were not socially isolated). Combinations of frailty and social vulnerability were associated with increased mortality, decline in physical function, and cognitive impairment. Clinical and public health measures targeting frailty or social vulnerability should, therefore, account for both frailty and social vulnerability.

Frailty in randomised controlled trials for dementia or mild cognitive impairment measured via the frailty index: prevalence and prediction of serious adverse events and attrition.

BACKGROUND: Frailty and dementia have a bidirectional relationship. However, frailty is rarely reported in clinical trials for dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) which limits assessment of trial applicability. This study aimed to use a frailty index (FI)-a cumulative deficit model of frailty-to measure frailty using individual participant data (IPD) from clinical trials for MCI and dementia. Moreover, the study aimed to quantify the prevalence of frailty and its association with serious adverse events (SAEs) and trial attrition. METHODS: We analysed IPD from dementia (n = 1) and MCI (n = 2) trials. An FI comprising physical deficits was created for each trial using baseline IPD. Poisson and logistic regression were used to examine associations with SAEs and attrition, respectively. Estimates were pooled in random effects meta-analysis. Analyses were repeated using an FI incorporating cognitive as well as physical deficits, and results compared. RESULTS: Frailty could be estimated in all trial participants. The mean physical FI was 0.14 (SD 0.06) and 0.14 (SD 0.06) in the MCI trials and 0.24 (SD 0.08) in the dementia trial. Frailty prevalence (FI > 0.24) was 6.9%/7.6% in MCI trials and 48.6% in the dementia trial. After including cognitive deficits, the prevalence was similar in MCI (6.1% and 6.7%) but higher in dementia (75.4%). The 99th percentile of FI (0.31 and 0.30 in MCI, 0.44 in dementia) was lower than in most general population studies. Frailty was associated with SAEs: physical FI IRR = 1.60 [1.40, 1.82]; physical/cognitive FI IRR = 1.64 [1.42, 1.88]. In a meta-analysis of all three trials, the estimated association between frailty and trial attrition included the null (physical FI OR = 1.17 [0.92, 1.48]; physical/cognitive FI OR = 1.16 [0.92, 1.46]), although higher frailty index values were associated with attrition in the dementia trial. CONCLUSION: Measuring frailty from baseline IPD in dementia and MCI trials is feasible. Those living with more severe frailty may be under-represented. Frailty is associated with SAEs. Including only physical deficits may underestimate frailty in dementia. Frailty can and should be measured in future and existing trials for dementia and MCI, and efforts should be made to facilitate inclusion of people living with frailty.

Stimulation of hepatocyte glucose metabolism by novel small molecule glucokinase activators.

Glucokinase (GK) has a major role in the control of blood glucose homeostasis and is a strong potential target for the pharmacological treatment of type 2 diabetes. We report here the mechanism of action of two novel and potent direct activators of GK: 6-[(3-isobutoxy-5-isopropoxybenzoyl)amino]nicotinic acid(GKA1) and 5-([3-isopropoxy-5-[2-(3-thienyl)ethoxy]benzoyl]amino)-1,3,4-thiadiazole-2-carboxylic acid(GKA2), which increase the affinity of GK for glucose by 4- and 11-fold, respectively. GKA1 increased the affinity of GK for the competitive inhibitor mannoheptulose but did not affect the affinity for the inhibitors palmitoyl-CoA and the endogenous 68-kDa regulator (GK regulatory protein [GKRP]), which bind to allosteric sites or to N-acetylglucosamine, which binds to the catalytic site. In hepatocytes, GKA1 and GKA2 stimulated glucose phosphorylation, glycolysis, and glycogen synthesis to a similar extent as sorbitol, a precursor of fructose 1-phosphate, which indirectly activates GK through promoting its dissociation from GKRP. Consistent with their effects on isolated GK, these compounds also increased the affinity of hepatocyte metabolism for glucose. GKA1 and GKA2 caused translocation of GK from the nucleus to the cytoplasm. This effect was additive with the effect of sorbitol and is best explained by a "glucose-like" effect of the GK activators in translocating GK to the cytoplasm. In conclusion, GK activators are potential antihyperglycemic agents for the treatment of type 2 diabetes through the stimulation of hepatic glucose metabolism by a mechanism independent of GKRP.