Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37312157›Full record

SynthesisAlzheimer's research & therapy2023

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.

Heather Wightman, Terry J Quinn, Frances S Mair, Jim Lewsey, David A McAllister, Peter Hanlon

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Frailty Indices and Their Importance in Elderly Patients: A Perspective Review.Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Heather WightmanSchool of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, 1 Horselethill Road, Glasgow, G12 9LX, UK.
Terry J QuinnSchool of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Health, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Frances S MairSchool of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, 1 Horselethill Road, Glasgow, G12 9LX, UK.
Jim LewseySchool of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, 1 Horselethill Road, Glasgow, G12 9LX, UK.
David A McAllisterSchool of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, 1 Horselethill Road, Glasgow, G12 9LX, UK.
Peter HanlonSchool of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, 1 Horselethill Road, Glasgow, G12 9LX, UK. Peter.hanlon@glasgow.ac.uk.
University of Glasgow · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/S021949/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 201492/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFrailty 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.

methodsWe 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.

resultsFrailty 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.

conclusionMeasuring 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.

Indexed as

Cognition DisordersCognitive DysfunctionDementiaFrailtyHumansPrevalenceRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCognitive impairmentDementiaFrailtyRandomised controlled trials

Identifiers

PMID37312157
PMCPMC10262528
OpenAlexW4380484613

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.