OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to externally validate the GerontoNet ADR risk score and to assess its validity in specific subpopulations of older inpatients.
METHODS: Data from the prospective CRIteria to assess appropriate Medication use among Elderly complex patients (CRIME) cohort were used. Dose-dependent and predictable ADRs were classified as type A, probable or definite ADRs were defined according to the Naranjo algorithm, and diagnostic accuracy was tested using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for a cut-off point of 4.
RESULTS: The mean age of the 1075 patients was 81.4 years (standard deviation 7.4) and the median number of drugs was 10 (range 7-13). At least one ADR was observed in 70 patients (6.5%); ADRs were classified as type A in 50 patients (4.7%) and defined as probable or definite in 41 patients (3.8%). Fair diagnostic accuracy to predict both type A and probable or definite ADRs was found in subpopulations aged <70 or ≥80 years with heart failure, diabetes, or a previous ADR. Good accuracy to predict type A ADRs was found in patients with a low body mass index (BMI; >18.5 kg/m2) and a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of >24/30 points, as well as in patients with osteoarthritis. The cut-off point of 4 points yielded very good sensitivity but poor specificity results in these subpopulations.
CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the GerontoNet ADR risk score might represent a pragmatic approach to identifying specific subpopulations of older inpatients at increased risk of an ADR with a fair to good diagnostic accuracy.
METHODS: Data from the Malaysian elders longitudinal research (MELoR) study were utilised. Baseline data were obtained from home-based computer-assisted interviews and hospital-based health-checks from 2013 to 2015. Protocol of MELoR study has been described in previous study (Lim in PLoS One 12(3):e0173466, 2017). Follow-up interviews were conducted in 2019 during which data on the adverse outcomes of falls, sarcopenia, hospitalization, and memory worsening were obtained. Sarcopenia at follow-up was determined using the strength, assistance with walking, rising from a chair, climbing stairs, and falls (SARC-F) questionnaire.
RESULTS: Follow-up data was available for 776 participants, mean (SD) age 68.1 (7.1) years and 57.1% women. At baseline, 37.1% were robust, 12.8% had isolated cognitive impairment, 24.1% were prefrail, 1.0% were frail, 20.2% were prefrail with cognitive impairment, and 4.8% had CF. Differences in age, ethnicity, quality of life, psychological status, function and comorbidities were observed across groups. The association between CF with hospitalisation and falls compared to robust individuals was attenuated by ethnic differences. Pre-frail individuals were at increased risk of memory worsening compared robust individuals [aOR(95%CI) = 1.69 (1.09-2.60)]. Frail [7.70 (1.55-38.20)], prefrail with cognitive impairment [3.35 (1.76-6.39)] and CF [6.15 (2.35-16.11)] were significantly more likely to be sarcopenic at 5-year follow-up compared to the robust group.
CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive frailty was an independently predictor of sarcopenia at 5-year follow-up. The relationship between CF with falls and hospitalization, however, appeared to be accounted for by ethnic disparities. Future studies should seek to unravel the potential genetic and lifestyle variations between ethnic groups to identify potential interventions to reduce the adverse outcomes associated with CF.
METHOD: This was a prospective study utilizing data from the Malaysian Elders Longitudinal Research (MELoR) study, which involved community-dwelling older adults aged 55 years and above at recruitment. Baseline (2013-2015) and wave 3 (2019) data were analyzed. Sarcopenia risk was determined using the strength, assistance walking, rising from a chair, climbing stairs, and falls (SARC-F) tool, with SARC-F ≥ 4 indicating sarcopenia. Baseline physical performance test scores were dichotomized using ROC-determined cut-offs.
RESULT: Data were available from 774 participants with mean age of 68.13 (SD = 7.13) years, 56.7% women. Cut-offs values for reduced GS, TUG, FR, and HGS were: <0.7 m/s (72.9% sensitivity and 53% specificity), >11.5 s (74.2%; 57.2%), <22.5 cm (73%; 54.2%) and HGS male <22 kg (70.0%; 26.7%) and female <17 kg (70.0%; 20.3%) respectively. Except for FR = 1.76 (1.01-3.06), GS = 2.29 (1.29-4.06), and TUG = 1.77 (1.00-3.13) were associated with increased sarcopenia risk after adjustments for baseline demographics and sarcopenia.
CONCLUSION: The defined cut-off values may be useful for the early detection of five-year sarcopenia risk in clinical and community settings. Despite HGS being a commonly used test to assess strength capacity in older adults, we advocate alternative strength measures, such as the sit-to-stand test, to be included in the assessment. Future studies should incorporate imaging modalities in the classification of sarcopenia to corroborate current study findings.