Being identified as frail by any of the four measures was associated with an increased risk of outcomes; however, their predictive accuracy varied.

The apparent prevalence of frailty varied when different measures were used. It is important for clinicians and researchers to be aware that different frailty measures may identify different groups of older people as frail.

ObjectiveTo test the association between use of medicines with anticholinergic or sedative properties and physical function, cognitive function, appetite and frailty.Design, setting and participantsThis cross-sectional study analysed baseline data collected as part of the Australian Longitudinal Study of Ageing, a population-based cohort of 2087 participants aged 65 years or over living in South Australia.Main outcome measuresPhysical function was measured at baseline using measures including hand grip strength, walking speed, chair stands, activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL). Cognitive function was measured using Mini-Mental State Examination. Appetite was measured using Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression question 2. Frailty was measured using frailty index. The association between use of anticholinergics or sedatives and physical or cognitive function, appetite, or frailty was assessed using analysis of covariance and ordinal or binary logistic regression.ResultsAlmost half of the population were using anticholinergics or sedatives (n=954, 45.7%). Use of anticholinergics was significantly associated with poorer grip strength, slower walking speed, poorer IADL and poorer appetite. Use of sedatives was significantly associated with poorer grip strength, slower walking speed and poorer IADL. We found no significant association between medicine use and cognitive function. Users of anticholinergics or sedatives were significantly more likely to be frail compared with non-users.ConclusionUse of medicines with anticholinergic or sedative properties is significantly associated with poorer physical function, poorer appetite and increased frailty. Early identification of signs and symptoms of deterioration associated with medicine use is particularly important in older people so that worsening frailty and subsequent adverse events are prevented.

Background:The Beers criteria are used to identify potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in the elderly. Few studies have examined the Beers criteria in elderly hospitalised patients in Australia. Aim: To identify the prevalence of PIM use in elderly patients admitted to an Australian hospital using the 2003 Beers criteria. Method: A prospective cross-sectional study of 100 elderly inpatients was undertaken using the Beers criteria to identify and compare PIM on admission and discharge. Logistic regression analysis examined the risk factors for PIM use. Results: 42% of patients had at least one PIM on admission compared to 39% at discharge. The most common PIMs were amitriptyline, senna, amiodarone and benzodiazepines (nitrazepam and diazepam). Excluding senna, the prevalence decreased to 36% at admission and 24% at discharge. At admission (including and excluding senna), PIM was not significantly associated with age, gender, living arrangements, number of comorbidities and number of medications. At discharge, PIM (including senna) was significantly associated with age (OR 1.1; 95%CI 1.02-1.3; p = 0.02), female gender (OR 3.6; 95%CI 1.3-10; p = 0.01) and number of medications (OR 1.2; 95%CI 1.0-1.3; p = 0.02). When senna was excluded PIM at discharge was only significantly higher in female patients (OR 5.4; 95%CI 1.7-16.9; p = 0.004). Conclusion: The Beers criteria detected a high prevalence of PIM use in elderly hospitalised patients.

Individuals identified as frail have been shown to be at an increased risk of adverse health outcomes. However, there is no gold standard frailty measure and frailty status can vary depending on the measure used, suggesting the measures perform differently. Construct validity can be used to assess a measure’s performance. This study aimed to examine the construct validity of four frailty measures in an Australian older population using Rasch analysis. Frailty status among the 2087 participants aged 65 years and above from the Australian Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ALSA) was assessed using: frailty phenotype - FP, simplified frailty phenotype - SFP, frailty index - FI, and prognostic frailty score – PFS. Rasch analysis was used to assess the unidimensionality of the measures, which is the extent to which the underlying characteristic of frailty is assessed. The criteria for unidimensionality from principal component analysis of the residuals was when 50% or more of the raw variance was explained by the measures, and less than 5% was unexplained variance. Only FI meet the unidimensionality criteria with 74% of explained variance and 2.1% of unexplained variance. SFP did not show a unidimensional construct with 13.3% of explained variance and 47.1% of unexplained variance. FP and PFS had 39.6%, 18.1% and 46.5%, 8.7% of explained and unexplained variance, respectively. Our findings showed that FI has better construct validity than the other three measures in assessing frailty among the Australian older population.