Development of a Frailty Phenotype Questionnaire for Use in Screening Community-Dwelling Older Adults.

The purpose of this study was to develop a screening questionnaire for frailty based on the Fried frailty phenotype (FFP) in community-dwelling older adults. Cross-sectional data analysis of a cohort study. The study used baseline data from the Korean Frailty and Aging Cohort Survey, a multicenter longitudinal study undertaken in 10 urban, rural, and suburban communities in Korea between 2016 and 2017. A total of 2917 older adults aged 70 to 84 years were included in the analysis, who were administered questionnaires and physical function tests. Gait speed and grip strength were measured, and all participants completed the International Physical Activity Questionnaire and answered questions about weight loss and exhaustion based on FFP. Five questions were chosen to screen for FFP: fatigue (exhaustion), resistance (weakness), ambulation (slowness), inactivity, and loss of weight. The Frailty Phenotype Questionnaire (FPQ; range of 0-5) was well correlated with the Fried frailty scale (range of 0-5) (r = 0.643; P < .001). Frailty based on the FPQ score (≥3 of 5) showed satisfactory diagnostic accuracy for FFP (area under the curve = 0.89), with high sensitivity (81.7%) and specificity (82.5%). The FPQ is a highly accurate screening tool for FFP in community-dwelling older adults.

Kim S ，Kim M ，Jung HW ，Won CW ... -  《-》

Development of a Fried Frailty Phenotype Questionnaire for Use in Screening Community-Dwelling Older Adults.

The aim of this study was to develop a Fried Frailty Phenotype Questionnaire (FFPQ) and a Japanese FRAIL (fatigue, resistance, ambulation, illnesses, and loss of weight) scale (FRAIL-J) and to evaluate the reliability and validity of both questionnaires in Japanese community-dwelling older adults. Cross-sectional analysis of Itoshima Frail Study (IFS). The IFS is an ongoing community-based prospective study in Itoshima (Japan). A total of 858 older adults age 65-75 years. The FRAIL-J comprises 5 existing items comparable to those in original FRAIL scale but with broader utilization in the Japanese healthcare system. In FFPQ, resistance, ambulation, and loss of weight were the same as those in FRAIL-J. Fatigue was the same with exhaustion in FFP and inactivity was assessed using a yes or no question. Data including demographics, and physical and cognitive functions, and objective physical activity was collected and analyzed in relation to both questionnaires. The FFPQ and FRAIL-J showed low internal consistency (Kuder-Richardson formula 20 coefficients = 0.32 and 0.29) and good test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients = 0.79 and 0.72). The correlations ranged from -0.22 to 0.49 when correlating each item with cross-sectional outcomes. Using FFP as a criterion, the ares under the curve for FRAIL-J and FFPQ were 0.86 and 0.88, respectively. The optimal cut-off for FRAIL-J was 2, with a higher Youden index (66.7% vs 20.3% for 3) and a high negative predictive value (99.5%) but low positive predictive value (13.1%). As for FFPQ, either 2 or 3 was evaluated as cut-off because the Youden index (62.2% vs 58.5%) and negative predictive value (99.7% vs 99.2%) were similar although the positive predictive value was low (9.7% vs 33.3%). Using a 2-point cut-off, both questionnaires had slight agreement with FFP. The highest agreement (kappa = 0.42) was found between FFP and FFPQ using a 3-point cut-off. The FFPQ and FRAIL-J can be used for frailty screening in Japanese community-dwelling older adults.

Chen S ，Chen T ，Kishimoto H ，Susaki Y ，Kumagai S ... -  《-》

Self-Reported Frailty Screening Tools: Comparing Construct Validity of the Frailty Phenotype Questionnaire and FRAIL.

We examined the construct validity of 2 self-reported frailty questionnaires, the Frailty Phenotype Questionnaire (FPQ) and FRAIL, against the Cardiovascular Health Study frailty phenotype (CHS-FP). Cross-sectional data analysis of longitudinal prospective cohort study. We included data from 230 older adults (mean age: 67.2 ± 7.4 years) from the "Longitudinal Assessment of Biomarkers for characterization of early Sarcopenia and Osteosarcopenic Obesity in predicting frailty and functional decline in community-dwelling Asian older adults Study" (GeriLABS 2) recruited between December 2017 and March 2019. We compared area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), agreement, correlation, and predictive validity against outcome measures [Short Physical Performance Battery, 5 times repeat chair stand (RCS-5), Frenchay activities index, International Physical Activity Questionnaire, life-space assessment, Social Functioning Scale 8 (SFS-8), EuroQol-5 dimensions (utility value)] using logistic regression adjusted for age, gender, and vascular risk factors. We examined concurrent validity across robust versus prefrail/frail for inflammatory blood biomarkers [tumor necrosis factor receptor 1 and C-reactive protein (CRP)] and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry body composition [bone mineral density (BMD); appendicular lean mass index (ALMI), and fat mass index (FMI)]. Prevalence of prefrail/frail was 25.7%, 14.8%, and 48.3% for FPQ, FRAIL, and CHS-FP, respectively. Compared with FRAIL, FPQ had better diagnostic performance (AUC = 0.617 vs 0.531, P = .002; sensitivity = 37.8% vs 18.0%; specificity = 85.6% vs 88.2%) and agreement (AC1-Stat = 0.303 vs 0.197). FPQ showed good predictive validity [RCS-5: odds ratio (OR) 2.38; 95% CI: 1.17-4.86; International Physical Activity Questionnaire: OR 3.62; 95% CI:1.78-7.34; SFS-8: OR 2.11; 95% CI: 1.64-5.89 vs FRAIL: all P &gt; .05]. Only FRAIL showed concurrent validity for CRP, compared with both FPQ and FRAIL for TNF-R1. FRAIL showed better concurrent validity for BMD, FMI, and possibly ALMI, unlike FPQ (all P &gt; .05). Our results support complementary validity of FPQ and FRAIL in independent community-dwelling older adults. FPQ has increased case detection sensitivity with good predictive validity, whereas FRAIL demonstrates concurrent validity for inflammation and body composition. With better diagnostic performance and validity for blood biomarkers and clinical outcomes, FPQ has utility for early frailty detection in the community setting.

Chia JQ ，Low K ，Chew J ，Lim JP ，Goh LL ，Wansaicheong G ，Lim WS ... -  《-》

Korean version of the Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illnesses and Loss of weight questionnaire versus the Modified Kihon Checklist for Frailty Screening in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: The Aging Study of PyeongChang Rural Area.

To compare the five-item Korean version of the Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illnesses and Loss of weight (K-FRAIL) questionnaire versus the 28-item Kihon + 3 index (the 25-item original Kihon checklist plus multimorbidity, sensory impairment, and Timed Up and Go test) in identifying prefrail or frail older adults. We carried out a cross-sectional analysis of 212 community-dwelling older adults (mean age 76 years; 41% male) in PyeongChang County, Korea. We compared the C statistic, sensitivity and specificity of the K-FRAIL questionnaire (range 0-5; cut-point ≥1) versus the Kihon + 3 index (range 0-31; cut-point ≥4) and the original Kihon checklist (range 0-25; cut-point ≥4) in identifying prefrail or frail individuals according to the Cardiovascular Health Study criteria. According to the Cardiovascular Health Study criteria, 150 individuals (70.8%) were prefrail or frail. The C statistic of the K-FRAIL questionnaire in identifying prefrail or frail individuals was lower than that of the Kihon + 3 index (0.77 vs 0.85; P = 0.022) or that of the original Kihon checklist (0.77 vs 0.84; P = 0.046). However, at the a priori cut-points, the K-FRAIL questionnaire had sensitivity (0.79 vs 0.85; P = 0.095) and specificity (0.69 vs 0.69; P = 1.000) that were not significantly different from those of the Kihon + 3 index. However, the K-FRAIL questionnaire was more sensitive (0.79 vs 0.69; P = 0.016), but less specific (0.69 vs 0.86, p = 0.018) than the original Kihon checklist. For frailty screening in community-dwelling older adults, the simple K-FRAIL questionnaire might not be inferior to the current standard of the Kihon + 3 index, and it might be more sensitive and less specific than the original Kihon checklist. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2017; 17: 2046-2052.

Jang IY ，Jung HW ，Lee CK ，Jang KH ，Cho EI ，Jung JJ ，Park E ，Kim J ，Lee YS ，Lee E ，Kim DH ... -  《-》

Agreement between standard and self-reported assessments of physical frailty syndrome and its components in a registry of community-dwelling older adults.

The ability to identify frail older adults using a self-reported version of the physical frailty phenotype (PFP) that has been validated with the standard PFP could facilitate physical frailty detection in clinical settings. We collected data from volunteers (N = 182), ages 65 years and older, in an aging research registry in Baltimore, Maryland. Measurements included: standard PFP (walking speed, grip strength, weight loss, activity, exhaustion); and self-reported questions about walking and handgrip strength. We compared objectively-measured gait speed and grip strength to self-reported questions using Cohen's Kappa and diagnostic accuracy tests. We used these measures to compare the standard PFP with self-reported versions of the PFP, focusing on a dichotomized identification of frail versus pre- or non-frail participants. Self-reported slowness had fair-to-moderate agreement (Kappa(k) = 0.34-0.56) with measured slowness; self-reported and objective weakness had slight-to-borderline-fair agreement (k = 0.10-0.21). Combining three self-reported slowness questions had highest sensitivity (81%) and negative predictive value (NPV; 91%). For weakness, three questions combined had highest sensitivity (72%), while all combinations had comparable NPV. Follow-up questions on level of difficulty led to minimal changes in agreement and decreased sensitivity. Substituting subjective for objective measures in our PFP model dichotomized by frail versus non/pre-frail, we found substantial (k = 0.76-0.78) agreement between standard and self-reported PFPs. We found highest sensitivity (86.4%) and NPV (98.7%) when comparing the dichotomized standard PFP to a self-reported version combining all slowness and weakness questions. Substitutions in a three-level model (frail, vs pre-frail, vs. non-frail) resulted in fair-to-moderate agreement (k = 0.33-0.50) with the standard PFP. Our results show potential utility as well as challenges of using certain self-reported questions in a modified frailty phenotype. A self-reported PFP with high agreement to the standard phenotype could be a valuable frailty screening assessment in clinical settings.

Buta B ，Zheng S ，Langdon J ，Adeosun B ，Bandeen-Roche K ，Walston J ，Xue QL ... -  《-》