4.4 Article

Prevalence of frailty and its associated factors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a cross-sectional analysis

Journal

CLINICAL RHEUMATOLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 7, Pages 1823-1830

Publisher

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-019-04486-5

Keywords

Comorbidities; Frailty syndrome; Grip strength; Rheumatoid arthritis; SHARE-FI

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectivesThe aims of the present research were to assess the prevalence of frailty and its potential associated factors in a cohort of adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsConsecutive RA patients and healthy controls were assessed according to the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe Frailty Instrument (SHARE-FI), and classified as frail, pre-frail, or non-frail. Chi-square, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and multinomial logistic regression analyses were used to test the prognostic value of frailty for the outcomes of interest.ResultsTwo hundred and ten consecutive RA patients (65.7% female, mean age 60.4years) and 100 healthy controls (63% female, mean age 59.1years) were included. According to SHARE-FI criteria, 35 RA patients (16.6%) were categorized as frail, 68 (32.4%) as pre-frail, and 107 (51%) as non-frail, while 8 control subjects were categorized as frail, (8%), 17 as pre-frail (17%), and 75 as non-frail (75%) (chi-squared 12.8; P=0.0016). The results from logistic regression analysis revealed that age (odds ratio [OR]=1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.07-1.17; P<0.0001), comorbidities (OR=1.51, 95% CI=1.01-2.27; P=0.0446), and high disease activity (OR=1.10, 95% CI=1.04-1.16; P=0.0006) were independently associated with frailty in RA.ConclusionsFrailty or pre-frailty are common in RA. The SHARE-FI may be a useful tool for the screening of frailty in RA and may summarize the results of a comprehensive RA assessment providing a marker of deficits accumulation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available