Abstract

Background

The diverse risk factors for kidney impairments suggest that kidney function decline is more likely to occur in individuals with a broadly constituted health deficit. Here we conducted a longitudinal cohort study to evaluate the association of baseline frailty status with the risk of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline.

Methods

Overall, 1269 participants aged 70–84 years from Rugao Longevity and Ageing cohort with 3-year follow-up were included. Frailty was measured using a modified Fried frailty assessment. GFR was estimated using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation. Associations between baseline frailty status and rapid eGFR decline were examined by multinomial logistic analysis. A linear mixed-effect model was used to determine eGFR decline in mL/min/1.73 m2 over the study period comparing those with frail or prefrail at baseline versus those with robust status.

Results

The mean (± standard deviation) age of participants was 75.1 ± 3.8 years. A total of 144 (11%) participants had rapid eGFR decline by at least 10% during the 3-year follow-up. Compared with robust status, baseline frail status was associated with a 2.48-fold [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24–4.95] increased risk of rapid eGFR decline after multiple adjustments. In multivariate linear mixed model analysis, subjects with frail status but not prefrail status at baseline had a significant coefficient of −1.70 (95% CI −3.35 to −0.04) for the frail × visit term, which indicates an accelerated eGFR decline compared with robust subjects over the study period (P =0.044).

Conclusions

Frailty may serve as an independent biomarker to predict the decline of kidney function.

KEY LEARNING POINTS

What is already known about this subject?

  • it has been reported that low baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was associated with the incidence of frailty;

  • the pathologic change of frailty indicates it may also be a predictive factor of kidney function decline;

  • however, the association between frailty and future decline of kidney function in community-dwelling individuals has not been explored.

What this study adds?

  • compared with robust status, baseline frail status was associated with a 2.48-fold [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24–4.95] increased risk of rapid eGFR decline after multiple adjustments; and

  • subjects with frail status but not prefrail status at baseline had a significant coefficient of −1.70 (95% CI −3.35 to −0.04) for the frail × visit term, which indicates an accelerated eGFR decline compared with robust subjects over the study period (P =0.044) by multivariate linear mixed model analysis.

What impact this may have on practice or policy?

  • frailty may serve as an independent biomarker to predict the decline of kidney function; and

  • prevention of kidney impairment in community-dwelling elderly may be benefit from improving frailty.

INTRODUCTION

Low glomerular filtration rate (GFR), independently associated with mortality regardless of age [1, 2], is the12th leading risk factor for death at the global level, and the 14th risk factor for disability-adjusted life-years among 79 risk factors [3]. GFR decline with age in elderly is common and the degree of progression increases particularly for persons with a lower GFR [4]. Thus, identifying higher risk elderly for early prevention is important to prevent or delay progressing to kidney failure or other adverse outcomes. Traditional factors predisposing to the deterioration of kidney function include older age, male, diabetes mellitus (DM) , hypertension (HBP), metabolic syndrome, etc. [5]. Novel risk factors for chronic kidney disease (CKD) are continuously being proposed, such as obstructive sleep apnea, higher heart rate, higher uric acid, etc. [6].

The diversity of risk factors for kidney function decline may itself be informative, which suggests that kidney function decline is more likely to occur in people with a broadly constituted general health deficits that may not necessarily cross disease thresholds. Elderly individuals in this venerable state are generally referred to as frail [7–9], which is now a recognized public health problem with a prevalence of 4–17% in persons ≥65 years [10]. Frailty is a state of age-related deficit accumulation that begins at the cellular level and leads to a loss of redundancy in organ systems [11]. Cellular senescence, low-grade inflammation, loss of telomeric structures, increased free radical production, mitochondrial dysfunction and poor DNA repair capability gradually occur in the biologic process of overall ageing [12], including renal ageing [13, 14]; however, they accelerate in the pathological process of frailty [7]. Therefore, frailty may additionally accelerate renal injury and provide an integrative perspective in the prevention of renal disease. People recognized as frail have a higher probability of developing adverse clinical events such as disability, hospitalization, falls and death. Besides, frailty was also recognized as predictor of organ or disease-based outcomes including coronary disease, heart failure and dementia in the elderly population [15–17]. These all contribute to the decline of kidney function. However, the association between frailty and future decline of kidney function in community-dwelling individuals has not been explored.

Therefore, we hypothesized that frailty in elderly people may confer a risk of kidney impairments. To test this hypothesis, we categorized an old cohort population into robust, prefrail and frail groups according to their baseline frailty status, and investigated their associations with longitudinal kidney function decline, which was defined by creatinine-based estimated GFR (eGFR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study population

We used data from the ageing arm of the Rugao Longevity and Ageing Study, a community-based longitudinal study conducted in Rugao city, Jiangsu, China. As previously described [18, 19], 1788 elders aged 70–84 years were recruited at baseline (November to December 2014, Wave 1) from 31 rural communities of Jiang’an Township, Rugao. A follow-up survey was conducted 1.5 years later (April to June 2016, Wave 2) and 3 years later (November to December 2017, Wave 3) for repeated measurement of baseline variables and for collection data on mortality and disease events onset. Of the 1788 participants who entered the cohort at Year 2014, 119 died before Wave 3, 369 withdrew from this cohort, the number of participants in Wave 3 reached 1950 with 650 newly entered individuals. We then excluded 992 individuals who had only one visit either at baseline or at Wave 3, and 104 individuals who had missing data on creatinine or frailty of baseline. Our final study population consisted of 1269 individuals (Figure 1). The Human Ethics Committee of the School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China, approved this study. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the study.

Cohort construction.
FIGURE 1

Cohort construction.

Demographic, clinical and laboratory measures

A structured questionnaire was administered by trained field staff that delved into areas including demographic characteristics, comorbidities and medications. Fast blood samples were drawn using uniform techniques for laboratory examination at recruitment and follow-up visit of study. All laboratory values that were routinely examined in clinical diagnosis were considered and measured using Beckman AU5821 (US) clinical chemistry analyzer with standard laboratory techniques.

Estimation of GFR and change in GFR

Serum creatinine concentration was measured according to an enzymatic method with the Cica Creatinine reagent (KANTO Chemical, Tokyo, Japan). We calculated eGFR using the creatinine-based CKD Epidemiology Collaboration equation (CKD-EPI) [20].

We defined change of kidney function as percentage change in eGFR from baseline to the 3-year follow-up. The 11% of the cohort with the largest decline in eGFREPI corresponded to the least loss of 10% throughout 3 years (i.e. at a rate of annual loss of 3 mL/min/1.73 m2 for participants with GFR of 90 mL/min/1.73 m2); We used this as a cut-off value for ‘rapid decline’, representing a magnitude of change that is three times the rate previously described in studies of normal aging, and that was beyond the range of noise in measurement [21]. The 65% of the cohort with the smallest decline in eGFREPI corresponded to the most loss of 3.3% throughout 3 years (i.e. approximately to a largest annual loss of 1 mL/min/1.73 m2 for participants with eGFR of 90 mL/min/1.73 m2); we used this as a cut-off value for ‘no decline’, representing a change of normal aging. The rest of the participants were categorized as with mild-to-moderate decline of eGFR.

Frailty

According to Fried et al., five components including unintentional weight loss, weakness, exhaustion, slowness and low activity were used to define the frailty phenotype [22, 23]. A modified Fried frailty assessment was used in this study. In brief, unintentional weight loss, exhaustion and low activity were based on self-reported items including ‘weight has decreased by 4.5 kg or 5% during the last 12 months’, ‘feeling tired all of the time (at least 3 or 4 days per a week)’ and ‘needing help to walk’. Slowness was defined as being below the 20th sex-specific percentile in gait speed, which was assessed using a Timed Up and Go test [24]. Weakness was defined as ‘unable’ or ‘some difficulties’ in lifting or carrying something as heavy as 10 kg or in squatting, which was similar to that used in other studies [23]. Participants with three or more of the five components were defined as ‘frail’, one or two as ‘prefrail’ and none as ‘robust’.

Statistical analyses

Population characteristics were presented stratified by baseline frailty categories. Differences in baseline characteristics between included versus excluded participants were compared by standardized differences due to the large sample size of this study. We used non-parametric trend tests to assess differences in baseline characteristics across frailty categories. Baseline frailty status was treated as categorical variables, and its associations with change of eGFR were examined by multinomial logistic analysis. For each analysis, we employed hierarchical adjustment with three models as follows:

  • Model 1, which included baseline frailty status;

  • Model 2, which included the above variables plus age, sex and education (illiterate, literate), smoking (non-smoker, smoker), baseline eGFR categories (<86, 86–92 and ≥92 mL/min/1.73 m2), HBP and DM; and

  • Model 3, which included the above variables plus serum low-density lipoprotein (LDL), high-density lipoprotein (HDL), triglyceride, albumin, uric acid and log-transformed urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) at the 3-year follow-up due to its skewed distribution.

A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare changes from baseline to the 3-year follow-up (Wave 3) of eGFR in mL/min/1.73 m2 between subjects with frail status at baseline and those with robust status, or between subjects with prefrail status and those were robust. In the multivariate mixed model, eGFR value at both points was a response variable, terms of baseline frailty status, visit, baseline frailty status × visit interaction, baseline age × visit interaction, sex, education, smoking, HBP and DM were treated as fixed categorical effects, LDL, HDL, triglyceride, albumin, uric acid at each visit and age at baseline, urine ACR at the 3-year follow-up were continuous covariates. Since more rapid progression is observed in those with lower eGFR, we classified eGFR into three categories based on the tertile of baseline eGFR (<86, 86–92 and ≥92 mL/min/1.73 m2) and included baseline eGFR categories × visit interaction as a fixed categorical effect. We included a random intercept and random slope for each subject in the model. Results are presented as the regression coefficient [95% confidence interval (CI)] for the relation between eGFR and visit, eGFR and baseline frailty status, eGFR and baseline frailty status × visit interaction.

The frequency of missing data was 15.7% for urine ACR, ˂1% for smoking and education. Multiple imputation methods with five data sets were used in all regression analyses. Analyses were conducted using STATA MP version 13.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). Significance was set at P <0.05.

RESULTS

Demographic and clinical characteristics of study participants at baseline

Figure 1 depicts the selection process of the cohort participants. Wave 2 data were not included in this analysis due to short follow-up period with regard to GFR changes. Overall, 1269 individuals aged 75 ± 4 years were included and followed up for 3 years in the present analysis. The demographic and clinical characteristics of study participants at baseline according to frailty status (robust, prefrail and frail group) were described in Table 1. From robust group to prefrail group, and then to frail group, participants were older, more females, less educated, more likely to be peasant, more often had DM, cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and stroke, less alcohol drinkers and cigarette smokers, had lower eGFR levels and creatinine levels, and higher serum triglyceride levels.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of 1269 participants stratified by frailty categories (robust, prefrail and frail)

CharacteristicsTotal, n = 1269Robust, n = 707Prefrail, n = 484Frail, n = 78P-value
Age, years75.1 ± 3.874.5 ± 3.675.6 ± 3.976.7 ± 4.0<0.001
Male, %579 (45.6)356 (50.4)210 (43.4)13 (16.7)<0.001
Married, %1253 (99.3)699 (99.4)477 (99.0)77 (100)0.80
Education: illiterate, %678 (53.9)342 (48.8)280 (58.5)56 (72.7)<0.001
Occupation: peasant, %1131 (89.3)604 (85.7)451 (93.3)76 (97.4)<0.001
Comorbidities, %
 DM87 (6.9)42 (5.9)33 (6.8)12 (15.4)0.02
 HBP568 (44.8)309 (43.7)221 (45.7)38 (48.7)0.33
 CVD241 (19.0)100 (14.1)110 (22.7)31 (39.7)<0.001
 COPD56 (4.4)17 (2.4)32 (6.6)7 (9.0)<0.001
 Stroke104 (8.2)42 (5.9)46 (9.5)16 (20.5)<0.001
 Drinking, %248 (19.6)175 (24.8)67 (13.9)6 (7.8)<0.001
 Smoking, %321 (25.4)195 (27.7)114 (23.6)12 (15.6)0.01
 Body mass index, kg/m224.2 ± 3.524.1 ± 3.324.1 ± 3.624.7 ± 4.20.71
 Systolic blood pressure, mmHg156.1 ± 21.8156.6 ± 21.9155.9 ± 21.8153.8 ± 21.50.54
 Diastolic blood pressure, mmHg82.0 ± 11.582.1 ± 11.182.1 ± 12.481.3 ± 9.80.80
 eGFR, mL/min/1.73 m2 (by CKD-EPI equation)88.0 ± 10.188.7 ± 9.087.3 ± 11.085.7 ± 12.70.01
Laboratory variables
 Albumin, g/L46.35 ± 2.5746.32 ± 2.5846.34 ± 2.5346.77 ± 2.640.22
 Creatinine, mg/dL0.69 ± 0.170.70 ± 0.160.69 ± 0.170.66 ± 0.190.04
 Uric acid, mg/dL5.52 ± 1.445.50 ± 1.335.57 ± 1.575.45 ± 1.600.68
 Triglyceride, mg/dL123.89 ± 86.73122.12 ± 84.96125.66 ± 89.38136.28 ± 80.530.02
 Cholesterol, mg/dL197.68 ± 34.36198.46 ± 34.36197.30 ± 35.52194.59 ± 28.960.36
 LDL cholesterol, mg/dL107.72 ± 25.87108.49 ± 25.87107.34 ± 25.48104.63 ± 24.320.31
 HDL cholesterol, mg/dL56.76 ± 12.7457.14 ± 12.3655.98 ± 13.1355.60 ± 13.510.07
 C-reactive protein, mg/L1.8 (1.3–3.1)1.8 (1.2–2.9)1.9 (1.3–3.3)2.0 (1.2–3.1)0.05
CharacteristicsTotal, n = 1269Robust, n = 707Prefrail, n = 484Frail, n = 78P-value
Age, years75.1 ± 3.874.5 ± 3.675.6 ± 3.976.7 ± 4.0<0.001
Male, %579 (45.6)356 (50.4)210 (43.4)13 (16.7)<0.001
Married, %1253 (99.3)699 (99.4)477 (99.0)77 (100)0.80
Education: illiterate, %678 (53.9)342 (48.8)280 (58.5)56 (72.7)<0.001
Occupation: peasant, %1131 (89.3)604 (85.7)451 (93.3)76 (97.4)<0.001
Comorbidities, %
 DM87 (6.9)42 (5.9)33 (6.8)12 (15.4)0.02
 HBP568 (44.8)309 (43.7)221 (45.7)38 (48.7)0.33
 CVD241 (19.0)100 (14.1)110 (22.7)31 (39.7)<0.001
 COPD56 (4.4)17 (2.4)32 (6.6)7 (9.0)<0.001
 Stroke104 (8.2)42 (5.9)46 (9.5)16 (20.5)<0.001
 Drinking, %248 (19.6)175 (24.8)67 (13.9)6 (7.8)<0.001
 Smoking, %321 (25.4)195 (27.7)114 (23.6)12 (15.6)0.01
 Body mass index, kg/m224.2 ± 3.524.1 ± 3.324.1 ± 3.624.7 ± 4.20.71
 Systolic blood pressure, mmHg156.1 ± 21.8156.6 ± 21.9155.9 ± 21.8153.8 ± 21.50.54
 Diastolic blood pressure, mmHg82.0 ± 11.582.1 ± 11.182.1 ± 12.481.3 ± 9.80.80
 eGFR, mL/min/1.73 m2 (by CKD-EPI equation)88.0 ± 10.188.7 ± 9.087.3 ± 11.085.7 ± 12.70.01
Laboratory variables
 Albumin, g/L46.35 ± 2.5746.32 ± 2.5846.34 ± 2.5346.77 ± 2.640.22
 Creatinine, mg/dL0.69 ± 0.170.70 ± 0.160.69 ± 0.170.66 ± 0.190.04
 Uric acid, mg/dL5.52 ± 1.445.50 ± 1.335.57 ± 1.575.45 ± 1.600.68
 Triglyceride, mg/dL123.89 ± 86.73122.12 ± 84.96125.66 ± 89.38136.28 ± 80.530.02
 Cholesterol, mg/dL197.68 ± 34.36198.46 ± 34.36197.30 ± 35.52194.59 ± 28.960.36
 LDL cholesterol, mg/dL107.72 ± 25.87108.49 ± 25.87107.34 ± 25.48104.63 ± 24.320.31
 HDL cholesterol, mg/dL56.76 ± 12.7457.14 ± 12.3655.98 ± 13.1355.60 ± 13.510.07
 C-reactive protein, mg/L1.8 (1.3–3.1)1.8 (1.2–2.9)1.9 (1.3–3.3)2.0 (1.2–3.1)0.05

Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation, median (interquartile range) or percentage, as appropriate.

Conversion factors for units: albumin in g/dL to g/L, ×10; creatinine in mg/dL to μmol/L, ×88.4; uric acid in mg/dL to μmol/L, ×59.48; triglyceride in mg/dL to mmol/L, ×0.0113; cholesterol in mg/dL to mmol/L, ×0.0259; LDL cholesterol in mg/dL to mmol/L, ×0.0259; HDL cholesterol in mg/dL to mmol/L, ×0.0259.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of 1269 participants stratified by frailty categories (robust, prefrail and frail)

CharacteristicsTotal, n = 1269Robust, n = 707Prefrail, n = 484Frail, n = 78P-value
Age, years75.1 ± 3.874.5 ± 3.675.6 ± 3.976.7 ± 4.0<0.001
Male, %579 (45.6)356 (50.4)210 (43.4)13 (16.7)<0.001
Married, %1253 (99.3)699 (99.4)477 (99.0)77 (100)0.80
Education: illiterate, %678 (53.9)342 (48.8)280 (58.5)56 (72.7)<0.001
Occupation: peasant, %1131 (89.3)604 (85.7)451 (93.3)76 (97.4)<0.001
Comorbidities, %
 DM87 (6.9)42 (5.9)33 (6.8)12 (15.4)0.02
 HBP568 (44.8)309 (43.7)221 (45.7)38 (48.7)0.33
 CVD241 (19.0)100 (14.1)110 (22.7)31 (39.7)<0.001
 COPD56 (4.4)17 (2.4)32 (6.6)7 (9.0)<0.001
 Stroke104 (8.2)42 (5.9)46 (9.5)16 (20.5)<0.001
 Drinking, %248 (19.6)175 (24.8)67 (13.9)6 (7.8)<0.001
 Smoking, %321 (25.4)195 (27.7)114 (23.6)12 (15.6)0.01
 Body mass index, kg/m224.2 ± 3.524.1 ± 3.324.1 ± 3.624.7 ± 4.20.71
 Systolic blood pressure, mmHg156.1 ± 21.8156.6 ± 21.9155.9 ± 21.8153.8 ± 21.50.54
 Diastolic blood pressure, mmHg82.0 ± 11.582.1 ± 11.182.1 ± 12.481.3 ± 9.80.80
 eGFR, mL/min/1.73 m2 (by CKD-EPI equation)88.0 ± 10.188.7 ± 9.087.3 ± 11.085.7 ± 12.70.01
Laboratory variables
 Albumin, g/L46.35 ± 2.5746.32 ± 2.5846.34 ± 2.5346.77 ± 2.640.22
 Creatinine, mg/dL0.69 ± 0.170.70 ± 0.160.69 ± 0.170.66 ± 0.190.04
 Uric acid, mg/dL5.52 ± 1.445.50 ± 1.335.57 ± 1.575.45 ± 1.600.68
 Triglyceride, mg/dL123.89 ± 86.73122.12 ± 84.96125.66 ± 89.38136.28 ± 80.530.02
 Cholesterol, mg/dL197.68 ± 34.36198.46 ± 34.36197.30 ± 35.52194.59 ± 28.960.36
 LDL cholesterol, mg/dL107.72 ± 25.87108.49 ± 25.87107.34 ± 25.48104.63 ± 24.320.31
 HDL cholesterol, mg/dL56.76 ± 12.7457.14 ± 12.3655.98 ± 13.1355.60 ± 13.510.07
 C-reactive protein, mg/L1.8 (1.3–3.1)1.8 (1.2–2.9)1.9 (1.3–3.3)2.0 (1.2–3.1)0.05
CharacteristicsTotal, n = 1269Robust, n = 707Prefrail, n = 484Frail, n = 78P-value
Age, years75.1 ± 3.874.5 ± 3.675.6 ± 3.976.7 ± 4.0<0.001
Male, %579 (45.6)356 (50.4)210 (43.4)13 (16.7)<0.001
Married, %1253 (99.3)699 (99.4)477 (99.0)77 (100)0.80
Education: illiterate, %678 (53.9)342 (48.8)280 (58.5)56 (72.7)<0.001
Occupation: peasant, %1131 (89.3)604 (85.7)451 (93.3)76 (97.4)<0.001
Comorbidities, %
 DM87 (6.9)42 (5.9)33 (6.8)12 (15.4)0.02
 HBP568 (44.8)309 (43.7)221 (45.7)38 (48.7)0.33
 CVD241 (19.0)100 (14.1)110 (22.7)31 (39.7)<0.001
 COPD56 (4.4)17 (2.4)32 (6.6)7 (9.0)<0.001
 Stroke104 (8.2)42 (5.9)46 (9.5)16 (20.5)<0.001
 Drinking, %248 (19.6)175 (24.8)67 (13.9)6 (7.8)<0.001
 Smoking, %321 (25.4)195 (27.7)114 (23.6)12 (15.6)0.01
 Body mass index, kg/m224.2 ± 3.524.1 ± 3.324.1 ± 3.624.7 ± 4.20.71
 Systolic blood pressure, mmHg156.1 ± 21.8156.6 ± 21.9155.9 ± 21.8153.8 ± 21.50.54
 Diastolic blood pressure, mmHg82.0 ± 11.582.1 ± 11.182.1 ± 12.481.3 ± 9.80.80
 eGFR, mL/min/1.73 m2 (by CKD-EPI equation)88.0 ± 10.188.7 ± 9.087.3 ± 11.085.7 ± 12.70.01
Laboratory variables
 Albumin, g/L46.35 ± 2.5746.32 ± 2.5846.34 ± 2.5346.77 ± 2.640.22
 Creatinine, mg/dL0.69 ± 0.170.70 ± 0.160.69 ± 0.170.66 ± 0.190.04
 Uric acid, mg/dL5.52 ± 1.445.50 ± 1.335.57 ± 1.575.45 ± 1.600.68
 Triglyceride, mg/dL123.89 ± 86.73122.12 ± 84.96125.66 ± 89.38136.28 ± 80.530.02
 Cholesterol, mg/dL197.68 ± 34.36198.46 ± 34.36197.30 ± 35.52194.59 ± 28.960.36
 LDL cholesterol, mg/dL107.72 ± 25.87108.49 ± 25.87107.34 ± 25.48104.63 ± 24.320.31
 HDL cholesterol, mg/dL56.76 ± 12.7457.14 ± 12.3655.98 ± 13.1355.60 ± 13.510.07
 C-reactive protein, mg/L1.8 (1.3–3.1)1.8 (1.2–2.9)1.9 (1.3–3.3)2.0 (1.2–3.1)0.05

Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation, median (interquartile range) or percentage, as appropriate.

Conversion factors for units: albumin in g/dL to g/L, ×10; creatinine in mg/dL to μmol/L, ×88.4; uric acid in mg/dL to μmol/L, ×59.48; triglyceride in mg/dL to mmol/L, ×0.0113; cholesterol in mg/dL to mmol/L, ×0.0259; LDL cholesterol in mg/dL to mmol/L, ×0.0259; HDL cholesterol in mg/dL to mmol/L, ×0.0259.

Compared with 1096 excluded participants who only had one-time evaluation at baseline or Wave 3 or who lacked data on either baseline creatinine or frailty, 1296 included participants were more likely to be younger, had lower prevalence of COPD, higher GFR and uric acid, and lower HDL (standardized difference >0.2; Supplementary data, Table S1).

Associations of baseline frailty status with rapid eGFR decline

A total of 144 (11%) participants had rapid decline of GFR by at least 10% during 3 years. Compared with the robust group, baseline frail group was associated with an increased risk of 3-year rapid decline in renal function [odds ratio (OR) = 2.68, 95% CI 1.45–4.96]. The association remained significant after multiple adjustments of previously reported confounders, with an OR of 2.48 (95% CI 1.24–4.95) (Table 2; Models 1, 2 and 3). No associations were observed between baseline frail status and moderate decline in kidney function, or between prefrail status at baseline and rapid decline in kidney function (Table 2; Models 1, 2 and 3). Besides, the results were very similar if we added age squared in the multivariate logistic model for the concern that the association of age with eGFR decline may not be linear (Supplementary data, Table S2).

Table 2.

Associations of baseline frailty status with change of eGFR

Frailty status at baselineParticipants number
Change of GFR: rapid decline versus no decline
Rapid declineNo declineModel 1
Model 2
Model 3
OR (95% CI)P-valueOR (95% CI)P-valueOR (95% CI)P-value
Robust68472RefRefRef
Prefrail593071.33 (0.91, 1.95)0.1341.24 (0.83, 1.86)0.3001.28 (0.85, 1.93)0.244
Frail17442.68 (1.45, 4.96)0.0022.28 (1.15, 4.51)0.0182.48 (1.24, 4.95)0.010
Frailty status at baselineParticipants number
Change of GFR: rapid decline versus no decline
Rapid declineNo declineModel 1
Model 2
Model 3
OR (95% CI)P-valueOR (95% CI)P-valueOR (95% CI)P-value
Robust68472RefRefRef
Prefrail593071.33 (0.91, 1.95)0.1341.24 (0.83, 1.86)0.3001.28 (0.85, 1.93)0.244
Frail17442.68 (1.45, 4.96)0.0022.28 (1.15, 4.51)0.0182.48 (1.24, 4.95)0.010
Change of GFR: moderate decline versus no decline
Moderate declineNo declineModel 1
Model 2
Model 3
OR (95% CI)P-valueOR (95% CI)P-valueOR (95% CI)P-value
Robust167472RefRefRef
Prefrail1183071.09 (0.82, 1.43)0.5571.07 (0.81, 1.42)0.6341.05 (0.79, 1.40)0.726
Frail17441.09 (0.61, 1.96)0.7691.02 (0.55, 1.88)0.9541.03 (0.56, 1.90)0.932
Change of GFR: moderate decline versus no decline
Moderate declineNo declineModel 1
Model 2
Model 3
OR (95% CI)P-valueOR (95% CI)P-valueOR (95% CI)P-value
Robust167472RefRefRef
Prefrail1183071.09 (0.82, 1.43)0.5571.07 (0.81, 1.42)0.6341.05 (0.79, 1.40)0.726
Frail17441.09 (0.61, 1.96)0.7691.02 (0.55, 1.88)0.9541.03 (0.56, 1.90)0.932

Model 1 includes baseline frailty status. Model 2 includes baseline frailty status plus age, sex, education (illiterate, literate), smoking (non-smoker, smoker), baseline eGFR categories, HBP and DM. Model 3 includes the variables in Model 2 plus LDL, HDL, triglyceride, albumin, uric acid and log-transformed urine ACR.

Table 2.

Associations of baseline frailty status with change of eGFR

Frailty status at baselineParticipants number
Change of GFR: rapid decline versus no decline
Rapid declineNo declineModel 1
Model 2
Model 3
OR (95% CI)P-valueOR (95% CI)P-valueOR (95% CI)P-value
Robust68472RefRefRef
Prefrail593071.33 (0.91, 1.95)0.1341.24 (0.83, 1.86)0.3001.28 (0.85, 1.93)0.244
Frail17442.68 (1.45, 4.96)0.0022.28 (1.15, 4.51)0.0182.48 (1.24, 4.95)0.010
Frailty status at baselineParticipants number
Change of GFR: rapid decline versus no decline
Rapid declineNo declineModel 1
Model 2
Model 3
OR (95% CI)P-valueOR (95% CI)P-valueOR (95% CI)P-value
Robust68472RefRefRef
Prefrail593071.33 (0.91, 1.95)0.1341.24 (0.83, 1.86)0.3001.28 (0.85, 1.93)0.244
Frail17442.68 (1.45, 4.96)0.0022.28 (1.15, 4.51)0.0182.48 (1.24, 4.95)0.010
Change of GFR: moderate decline versus no decline
Moderate declineNo declineModel 1
Model 2
Model 3
OR (95% CI)P-valueOR (95% CI)P-valueOR (95% CI)P-value
Robust167472RefRefRef
Prefrail1183071.09 (0.82, 1.43)0.5571.07 (0.81, 1.42)0.6341.05 (0.79, 1.40)0.726
Frail17441.09 (0.61, 1.96)0.7691.02 (0.55, 1.88)0.9541.03 (0.56, 1.90)0.932
Change of GFR: moderate decline versus no decline
Moderate declineNo declineModel 1
Model 2
Model 3
OR (95% CI)P-valueOR (95% CI)P-valueOR (95% CI)P-value
Robust167472RefRefRef
Prefrail1183071.09 (0.82, 1.43)0.5571.07 (0.81, 1.42)0.6341.05 (0.79, 1.40)0.726
Frail17441.09 (0.61, 1.96)0.7691.02 (0.55, 1.88)0.9541.03 (0.56, 1.90)0.932

Model 1 includes baseline frailty status. Model 2 includes baseline frailty status plus age, sex, education (illiterate, literate), smoking (non-smoker, smoker), baseline eGFR categories, HBP and DM. Model 3 includes the variables in Model 2 plus LDL, HDL, triglyceride, albumin, uric acid and log-transformed urine ACR.

Baseline frailty status and changes of eGFR over the study period

The magnitude of change in eGFR in subjects with baseline frail status or prefrail status versus subjects with baseline robust status is seen in Table 3. In univariate linear mixed model analysis, eGFR declined by 1.75 (95% CI 2.3–1.21, P <0.001) mL/min/1.73 m2 at the second visit (Wave 3, Year 2017). Besides, subjects with baseline prefrail status had further eGFR decline of 1.39 (95% CI 2.55–0.22, Pfor prefrail = 0.020) and 0.38 (95% CI 1.23 to −0.48, Pfor prefrail × visit = 0.389) mL/min/1.73 m2 compared with subjects with baseline robust status. Subjects with baseline frail status had further eGFR decline of 2.97 (95% CI 5.33–0.61, Pfor frail = 0.013) and 2.14 (95% CI 3.87–0.41, Pfor frail × visit = 0.015) mL/min/1.73 m2 compared with subjects with baseline robust status. In multivariate linear mixed model analysis, eGFR declined by 2.00 (95% CI 3.46–0.55, P =0.007) mL/min/1.73 m2 at the second visit. Subjects with baseline prefrail status had no significant further decline of eGFR compared with subjects with baseline robust status. However, subjects with baseline frail status had a faster eGFR decline of 1.70 (95% CI 3.35–0.04, Pfor frail × visit = 0.044) mL/min/1.73 m2 compared with subjects with baseline robust status.

Table 3.

The changes (95% CIs) of slope coefficients of eGFR by predictive variables in univariate and multivariable linear mixed model analyses

Compared with robustRegression coefficient (95% CI)P-value
Univariate analysis
Prefrail−1.39 (−2.55 to −0.22)0.020
Frail−2.97 (−5.33 to −0.61)0.013
Visit−1.75 (−2.30 to −1.21)<0.001
Prefrail × visit−0.38 (−1.23 to 0.48)0.389
Frail × visit−2.14 (−3.87 to −0.41)0.015
Multivariate analysisa
Prefrail0.01 (−0.67 to 0.69)0.978
Frail−0.24 (−1.63 to 1.14)0.731
Visit−2.00 (−3.46 to −0.55)0.007
Prefrail × visit−0.24 (−1.06 to 0.57)0.558
Frail × visit−1.70 (−3.35 to −0.04)0.044
Compared with robustRegression coefficient (95% CI)P-value
Univariate analysis
Prefrail−1.39 (−2.55 to −0.22)0.020
Frail−2.97 (−5.33 to −0.61)0.013
Visit−1.75 (−2.30 to −1.21)<0.001
Prefrail × visit−0.38 (−1.23 to 0.48)0.389
Frail × visit−2.14 (−3.87 to −0.41)0.015
Multivariate analysisa
Prefrail0.01 (−0.67 to 0.69)0.978
Frail−0.24 (−1.63 to 1.14)0.731
Visit−2.00 (−3.46 to −0.55)0.007
Prefrail × visit−0.24 (−1.06 to 0.57)0.558
Frail × visit−1.70 (−3.35 to −0.04)0.044
a

In this multivariable linear mixed model, eGFR value at both visits (baseline and the third year follow-up) was a response variable, terms of baseline frailty status, visit, baseline frailty status × visit interaction, baseline eGFR categories × visit interaction, baseline age × visit interaction, sex, education, smoking, HBP and DM were treated as fixed categorical effects, and LDL, HDL, triglyceride, albumin, uric acid at each visit and age at baseline, urine ACR at the third year follow-up were continuous covariates.

Table 3.

The changes (95% CIs) of slope coefficients of eGFR by predictive variables in univariate and multivariable linear mixed model analyses

Compared with robustRegression coefficient (95% CI)P-value
Univariate analysis
Prefrail−1.39 (−2.55 to −0.22)0.020
Frail−2.97 (−5.33 to −0.61)0.013
Visit−1.75 (−2.30 to −1.21)<0.001
Prefrail × visit−0.38 (−1.23 to 0.48)0.389
Frail × visit−2.14 (−3.87 to −0.41)0.015
Multivariate analysisa
Prefrail0.01 (−0.67 to 0.69)0.978
Frail−0.24 (−1.63 to 1.14)0.731
Visit−2.00 (−3.46 to −0.55)0.007
Prefrail × visit−0.24 (−1.06 to 0.57)0.558
Frail × visit−1.70 (−3.35 to −0.04)0.044
Compared with robustRegression coefficient (95% CI)P-value
Univariate analysis
Prefrail−1.39 (−2.55 to −0.22)0.020
Frail−2.97 (−5.33 to −0.61)0.013
Visit−1.75 (−2.30 to −1.21)<0.001
Prefrail × visit−0.38 (−1.23 to 0.48)0.389
Frail × visit−2.14 (−3.87 to −0.41)0.015
Multivariate analysisa
Prefrail0.01 (−0.67 to 0.69)0.978
Frail−0.24 (−1.63 to 1.14)0.731
Visit−2.00 (−3.46 to −0.55)0.007
Prefrail × visit−0.24 (−1.06 to 0.57)0.558
Frail × visit−1.70 (−3.35 to −0.04)0.044
a

In this multivariable linear mixed model, eGFR value at both visits (baseline and the third year follow-up) was a response variable, terms of baseline frailty status, visit, baseline frailty status × visit interaction, baseline eGFR categories × visit interaction, baseline age × visit interaction, sex, education, smoking, HBP and DM were treated as fixed categorical effects, and LDL, HDL, triglyceride, albumin, uric acid at each visit and age at baseline, urine ACR at the third year follow-up were continuous covariates.

DISCUSSION

In this study, for the first time, we provided evidence that baseline frailty was independently associated with increased risk of decline of kidney function. Our study suggests that other than modifying traditional kidney risk factors, prevention of kidney impairment in high-risk elderly individuals may be benefit from improving frailty.

The prevalence rate of frailty and prefrailty in our study was 6% and 38%, respectively, which suggests a high burden of vulnerable elderly people in China. Frailty measure is crucial for the development of interventions against age-related conditions in older persons, and two major measurements are frailty phenotype and frailty index. Different from frailty index, which is composed by a long checklist of clinical conditions and diseases, frailty phenotype is based on a pre-defined set of five criteria, and is well served for differentiating those having early clinical symptoms of disability [25]. This frailty state is independently linked to clinical diseases such as CVDs, dementia, fracture, and disease-related mortality and hospitalization [15, 16, 26, 27]. Therefore, it has received an increasing amount of attention.

In this study, we found that frailty status was associated with levels of eGFR in the cross-sectional analysis in baseline data. By using the data of 10 256 participants from Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, Wilhelm-Leen also demonstrated that the odds of frailty were substantially higher in participants with CKD Stages 1–5 than in those without [28].

Longitudinal studies of the association between frailty and eGFR have previously only focussed on the baseline eGFR associated with the incidence of frailty. In two cohort studies involving old populations, it was found that lower cystatin C-based eGFR was associated with an increased risk of incident frailty [29, 30]. We did not find this association in our cohort, which may be due to lack of statistical power resulting from the moderate longitudinal GFR decline within a limited follow-up period. However, frailty and kidney function decline may have a bidirectional relationship. Frailty may also be a risk factor for kidney impairment, as evidenced by our study.

What then are the mechanisms that frailty contributes to the development of kidney impairments? (i) Inflammation, which is a key pathophysiological process of physical frailty, may contribute to the progression of kidney function decline by inducing the release of cytokines and adhesion molecules, which together contribute to T-cell adhesion and migration into the interstitium of the kidney, subsequently attracting pro-fibrotic factors and impairing kidney function [31, 32]. (ii) Frail subjects have higher sympathetic and lower parasympathetic modulation [33, 34], higher oxidative stress and levels [35], marked deoxyribonucleic acid damage [36] and shorter telomere length [37] that could contribute to premature aging, which may manifest as rapid decline of kidney function [38]. (iii) With the development of frailty, the angiotensin receptors change towards more expression of Ang II Type 1 receptors (AT1Rs) [39]. AT1R stimulation promotes mitochondrial damage and reactive oxygen species production, both of which in turn trigger age-related vascular changes predisposing to increased kidney function decline [38]. (iv) Endocrine dysregulations present in frail people including lower sex hormone levels [7] and insulin-like growth factor-1 [40, 41] have been implicated in the repair ability of senescent kidneys [38, 42]. In short, frailty, reflecting the pathological decline of multiple inter-related physiology organ systems, may integrate the overall effects of individual risk factors to contribute to kidney damage in the elderly individuals [43]. The results from the mixed-effect model further showed that subjects with baseline frail status had a faster eGFR decline of 1.70 mL/min/1.73 m2 compared with robust subjects at baseline, over the 3-year study period. It indicates that frailty accelerates the progression of kidney function by 57% each year, supposing the normal ageing of GFR decline is 1 mL/min/1.73 m2/year. Actually, we found this acceleration was as high as 5.00 mL/min/1.73 m2 in males and 2.97 mL/min/1.73 m2 in those without HBP or DM. However, these results need to be validated in a larger cohort. Nevertheless, it would be very interesting to investigate the accumulation effect of frailty on GFR decline by following the cohort for a longer time and in subgroup populations. Several approaches have been investigated in clinical trials to reduce the prevalence or severity of frailty, such as exercise interventions and nutritional interventions [44–47]. Future research is needed to investigate whether the treatment of frailty could prevent the kidney from pathological decline.

The limitations of this study should be noted. First, as with other observational studies, ours cannot prove causality. Secondly, GFR was estimated by the creatinine-based equation, which may be confounded by muscle mass. Given that the association could be found between frailty and rapid GFR decline even in the condition of overestimation of GFR level in subjects with low muscle mass, a stronger association may be established by alternative markers of glomerular filtration, such as cystatin C. Thirdly, potential selection bias may exist. However, the included population is a little younger and subsequently had higher GFRs, lower prevalence of COPD and higher uric acid, to a degree with limited clinical significance. In addition, our results may not be generalizable to other races and cohorts.

In conclusion, we found that baseline frailty was independently associated with the decline of kidney function in elderly people. Frailty may serve as an independent biomarker to predict early kidney function decline. Future studies are needed to explore whether prevention of kidney impairment in elderly populations would be benefit from improving frailty.

SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

Supplementary data are available at ndt online.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the staff and participants of the Rugao Longevity and Ageing cohort for providing the clinical data for this research.

FUNDING

This work was financially supported by the Shanghai science and technology commission innovation action plan project No. 17411950701 (J.C.), National Key R&D Program of China No. 2020YFC2005003, 2018YFC2000400, 2018YFC2002000, 2018YFC2000200, Shanghai medical leading project No. 2019LJ03 (J.C.), Shanghai natural science grant No. 16ZR1449400 (M.W.), China natural science grant No. 81600577 (M.W.), Shanghai Shenkang hospital development center clinical science and technology innovation project No. SHDC12018111 (J.C.) and the Shanghai Shenkang three-year action project No. SHDC2020CR4014 (M.W.). The funders had no role in study design; collection, analysis and interpretation of data; writing the report; or the decision to submit the final report for publication.

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS

Research idea and study design carried out by M.W., X.S., X.W. and J.C. Data acquisition was done by M.W., W.Z., W.C., L.J., X.W. and J.C. Data analysis and interpretation were performed by M.W., W.Z., W.C., Q.Z., J.Q., S.Y., L.J., X.W., K.K.-Z. and J.C. Statistical analysis carried out by M.W., X.W. and J.C. Supervision or mentorship by X.W. and J.C.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

J.C. and X.W. had access to all of the data in the study. Please contact these authors for data acquirement needs.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare that they have no relevant financial interests.

REFERENCES

1

Hallan
SI
,
Matsushita
K
,
Sang
Y
et al.
Age and association of kidney measures with mortality and end-stage renal disease
.
JAMA
2012
;
308
:
2349
2360

2

Roderick
PJ.
Assessing the impact of chronic kidney disease on individuals and populations: use of relative and absolute measures
.
Nephrol Dial Transplant
2012
;
27
:
iii39
iii42

3

Forouzanfar
MH
,
Alexander
L
,
Anderson
HR et al.
;
GBD 2013 Risk Factors Collaborators
.
Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013
.
Lancet
2015
;
386
:
2287
2323

4

Hemmelgarn
BR
,
Zhang
J
,
Manns
BJ
et al.
Progression of kidney dysfunction in the community-dwelling elderly
.
Kidney Int
2006
;
69
:
2155
2161

5

Taal
MW
,
Brenner
BM.
Predicting initiation and progression of chronic kidney disease: developing renal risk scores
.
Kidney Int
2006
;
70
:
1694
1705

6

Kazancioglu
R.
Risk factors for chronic kidney disease: an update
.
Kidney Int Suppl
2011
;
3
:
368
371

7

Clegg
A
,
Young
J
,
Iliffe
S
et al.
Frailty in elderly people
.
Lancet
2013
;
381
:
752
762

8

Song
X
,
Mitnitski
A
,
Rockwood
K.
Prevalence and 10-year outcomes of frailty in older adults in relation to deficit accumulation
.
J Am Geriatr Soc
2010
;
58
:
681
687

9

Bandeen-Roche
K
,
Seplaki
CL
,
Huang
J
et al.
Frailty in older adults: a nationally representative profile in the United States
.
Gerona
2015
;
70
:
1427
1434

10

Collard
RM
,
Boter
H
,
Schoevers
RA
et al.
Prevalence of frailty in community-dwelling older persons: a systematic review
.
J Am Geriatr Soc
2012
;
60
:
1487
1492

11

Chowdhury
R
,
Peel
NM
,
Krosch
M
et al.
Frailty and chronic kidney disease: a systematic review
.
Arch Gerontol Geriatr
2017
;
68
:
135
142

12

Nixon
AC
,
Bampouras
TM
,
Pendleton
N
et al.
Frailty and chronic kidney disease: current evidence and continuing uncertainties
.
Clin Kidney J
2018
;
11
:
236
245

13

O’Sullivan
ED
,
Hughes
J
,
Ferenbach
DA.
Renal aging: causes and consequences
.
J Am Soc Nephrol
2017
;
28
:
407
420

14

Noordmans
GA
,
Hillebrands
JL
,
Goor
H
et al.
A roadmap for the genetic analysis of renal aging
.
Aging Cell
2015
;
14
:
725
733

15

Sergi
G
,
Veronese
N
,
Fontana
L
et al.
Pre-frailty and risk of cardiovascular disease in elderly men and women: the Pro. V.A. study
.
J Am Coll Cardiol
2015
;
65
:
976
983

16

Veronese
N
,
Cereda
E
,
Stubbs
B
et al.
Risk of cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality in frail and pre-frail older adults: results from a meta-analysis and exploratory meta-regression analysis
.
Ageing Res Rev
2017
;
35
:
63
73

17

Song
X
,
Mitnitski
A
,
Rockwood
K.
Nontraditional risk factors combine to predict Alzheimer disease and dementia
.
Neurology
2011
;
77
:
227
234

18

Liu
Z
,
Wang
Y
,
Zhang
Y
et al.
Cohort profile: the Rugao longevity and ageing study (RuLAS)
.
Int J Epidemiol
2016
;
45
:
1064
1073

19

Shi
GP
,
Ma
T
,
Zhu
YS
et al.
Frailty phenotype, frailty index and risk of mortality in Chinese elderly population-Rugao longevity and ageing study
.
Arch Gerontol Geriatr
2019
;
80
:
115
119

20

Levey
AS
,
Stevens
LA
,
Schmid
CH et al.;
for the CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration)
.
A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate
.
Ann Intern Med
2009
;
150
:
604
612

21

Rifkin
DE
,
Shlipak
MG
,
Katz
R
et al.
Rapid kidney function decline and mortality risk in older adults
.
Arch Intern Med
2008
;
168
:
2212
2218

22

Fried
LP
,
Tangen
CM
,
Walston
J
et al.
Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype
.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci
2001
;
56
:
M146
M156

23

Blodgett
J
,
Theou
O
,
Kirkland
S
et al.
Frailty in NHANES: comparing the frailty index and phenotype
.
Arch Gerontol Geriatr
2015
;
60
:
464
470

24

Nordin
E
,
Lindelof
N
,
Rosendahl
E
et al.
Prognostic validity of the timed up-and-go test, a modified get-up-and-go test, staff's global judgement and fall history in evaluating fall risk in residential care facilities
.
Age Ageing
2008
;
37
:
442
448

25

Cesari
M
,
Gambassi
G
,
van Kan
GA
et al.
The frailty phenotype and the frailty index: different instruments for different purposes
.
Age Ageing
2014
;
43
:
10
12

26

Tsutsumimoto
K
,
Doi
T
,
Makizako
H
et al.
Cognitive frailty is associated with fall-related fracture among older people
.
J Nutr Health Aging
2018
;
22
:
1216
1220

27

Taylor-Rowan
M
,
Keir
R
,
Cuthbertson
G
et al.
Pre-stroke frailty is independently associated with post-stroke cognition: a cross-sectional study
.
J Int Neuropsychol Soc
2019
;
25
:
501
506

28

Wilhelm-Leen
ER
,
Hall
YN
,
Tamura
MK
et al.
Frailty and chronic kidney disease: the Third National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey
.
Am J Med
2009
;
122
:
664
671

29

Dalrymple
LS
,
Katz
R
,
Rifkin
DE
et al.
Kidney function and prevalent and incident frailty
.
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol
2013
;
8
:
2091
2099

30

Hart
A
,
Blackwell
TL
,
Paudel
ML et al.;
Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Study Group
.
Cystatin C and the risk of frailty and mortality in older men
.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci
2017
;
72
:
965
970

31

Chen
X
,
Mao
G
,
Leng
SX.
Frailty syndrome: an overview
.
Clin Interv Aging
2014
;
9
:
433
441

32

Silverstein
DM.
Inflammation in chronic kidney disease: role in the progression of renal and cardiovascular disease
.
Pediatr Nephrol
2009
;
24
:
1445
1452

33

Katayama
PL
,
Dias
DP
,
Silva
LE
et al.
Cardiac autonomic modulation in non-frail, pre-frail and frail elderly women: a pilot study
.
Aging Clin Exp Res
2015
;
27
:
621
629

34

Augustyniak
RA
,
Picken
MM
,
Leonard
D
et al.
Sympathetic nerves and the progression of chronic kidney disease during 5/6 nephrectomy: studies in sympathectomized rats
.
Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol
2010
;
37
:
12
18

35

Mulero
J
,
Zafrilla
P
,
Martinez-Cacha
A.
Oxidative stress, frailty and cognitive decline
.
J Nutr Health Aging
2011
;
15
:
756
760

36

Ashar
FN
,
Moes
A
,
Moore
AZ
et al.
Association of mitochondrial DNA levels with frailty and all-cause mortality
.
J Mol Med
2015
;
93
:
177
186

37

Zaslavsky
O
,
Cochrane
BB
,
Thompson
HJ
et al.
Frailty: a review of the first decade of research
.
Biol Res Nurs
2013
;
15
:
422
432

38

Bolignano
D
,
Mattace-Raso
F
,
Sijbrands
EJ
et al.
The aging kidney revisited: a systematic review
.
Ageing Res Rev
2014
;
14
:
65
80

39

Abadir
PM.
The frail renin-angiotensin system
.
Clin Geriatr Med
2011
;
27
:
53
65

40

Cappola
AR
,
Xue
QL
,
Fried
LP.
Multiple hormonal deficiencies in anabolic hormones are found in frail older women: the Women's Health and Aging studies
.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci
2009
;
64A
:
243
248

41

Yeap
BB
,
Paul Chubb
SA
,
Lopez
D
et al.
Associations of insulin-like growth factor-I and its binding proteins and testosterone with frailty in older men
.
Clin Endocrinol
2013
;
78
:
752
759

42

Yi
S
,
Selvin
E
,
Rohrmann
S
et al.
Endogenous sex steroid hormones and measures of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in a nationally representative sample of men
.
Clin Endocrinol (Oxf)
2009
;
71
:
246
252

43

Howlett
SE
,
Rockwood
K.
New horizons in frailty: ageing and the deficit-scaling problem
.
Age Ageing
2013
;
42
:
416
423

44

Theou
O
,
Stathokostas
L
,
Roland
KP
et al.
The effectiveness of exercise interventions for the management of frailty: a systematic review
.
J Aging Res
2011
;
2011
:
1
19

45

Fiatarone
MA
,
O’Neill
EF
,
Ryan
ND
et al.
Exercise training and nutritional supplementation for physical frailty in very elderly people
.
N Engl J Med
1994
;
330
:
1769
1775

46

Sumukadas
D
,
Witham
MD
,
Struthers
AD
et al.
Effect of perindopril on physical function in elderly people with functional impairment: a randomized controlled trial
.
CMAJ
2007
;
177
:
867
874

47

Wicherts
IS
,
van Schoor
NM
,
Boeke
AJ
et al.
Vitamin D status predicts physical performance and its decline in older persons
.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab
2007
;
92
:
2058
2065

Author notes

These authors contributed equally to this work.

This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://dbpia.nl.go.kr/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)

Supplementary data

Comments

0 Comments
Submit a comment
You have entered an invalid code
Thank you for submitting a comment on this article. Your comment will be reviewed and published at the journal's discretion. Please check for further notifications by email.