Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2026
Frailty in rheumatoid arthritis and the general population: a cross-sectional analysis of the Groningen Frailty Indicator and Fried criteria.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Truijen Saskia P M, Boonen Annelies, Ramiro Sofia, van Onna Marloes
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare frailty prevalence and factors driving frailty between older adults with RA and controls, using two conceptually distinct frailty instruments.
METHODS: Cross-sectional data from the Studying Ageing in Rheumatoid Arthritis (STAR) study were used, including 207 patients with RA and 214 population controls aged 55-85 years. Frailty was assessed using the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI; 15 yes/no items; physical, cognitive, social, psychological domains; frail ≥ 4/15) in all participants and the Fried criteria (five yes/no items; physical domain; prefrail = 1-2, frail ≥ 3, and combined frail/prefrail ≥ 1 deficit) in a clinically assessed subgroup (RA: n = 88, controls: n = 96). Prevalence and overlap between instruments were described by group. Uni- and multivariable logistic (GFI: frailty vs robust) and Poisson (Fried: frail/prefrail vs robust) regressions assessed effects of age, group, the age*group interaction and additional covariates.
RESULTS: Frailty prevalence was higher in RA than controls for GFI-frailty (34% vs 18%) and Fried-frailty/prefrailty (72% vs 50%). Among GFI-frail persons, 88% of patients with RA compared with 69% of controls were also frail or prefrail by Fried. Age was not associated with frailty in uni- or multivariable analyses for either instrument, in RA or controls (pinteraction age*group >0.10). The association with RA became insignificant after multivariable adjustment. Living alone, comorbidity score ≥1, higher fatigue and anxiety were associated with GFI-frailty, and higher BMI and poorer physical function with Fried-frailty/prefrailty.
CONCLUSION: Older adults with RA show higher (pre)frailty prevalence than controls, which is associated with disease-related consequences and vulnerability rather than age, questioning the added value of frailty assessment beyond routine clinical evaluation.
METHODS: Cross-sectional data from the Studying Ageing in Rheumatoid Arthritis (STAR) study were used, including 207 patients with RA and 214 population controls aged 55-85 years. Frailty was assessed using the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI; 15 yes/no items; physical, cognitive, social, psychological domains; frail ≥ 4/15) in all participants and the Fried criteria (five yes/no items; physical domain; prefrail = 1-2, frail ≥ 3, and combined frail/prefrail ≥ 1 deficit) in a clinically assessed subgroup (RA: n = 88, controls: n = 96). Prevalence and overlap between instruments were described by group. Uni- and multivariable logistic (GFI: frailty vs robust) and Poisson (Fried: frail/prefrail vs robust) regressions assessed effects of age, group, the age*group interaction and additional covariates.
RESULTS: Frailty prevalence was higher in RA than controls for GFI-frailty (34% vs 18%) and Fried-frailty/prefrailty (72% vs 50%). Among GFI-frail persons, 88% of patients with RA compared with 69% of controls were also frail or prefrail by Fried. Age was not associated with frailty in uni- or multivariable analyses for either instrument, in RA or controls (pinteraction age*group >0.10). The association with RA became insignificant after multivariable adjustment. Living alone, comorbidity score ≥1, higher fatigue and anxiety were associated with GFI-frailty, and higher BMI and poorer physical function with Fried-frailty/prefrailty.
CONCLUSION: Older adults with RA show higher (pre)frailty prevalence than controls, which is associated with disease-related consequences and vulnerability rather than age, questioning the added value of frailty assessment beyond routine clinical evaluation.