Advertisement

Aging Clinical and Experimental Research

, Volume 31, Issue 11, pp 1685–1688 | Cite as

The Frailty Index in centenarians and their offspring

  • Beatrice ArosioEmail author
  • E. Ferri
  • M. Casati
  • D. Mari
  • G. Vitale
  • M. Cesari
Short Communication

Abstract

Frailty has been indicated as a way for capturing biological aging of the individual and Frailty Index (FI) may serve for this purpose. This study designed the FI in a cohort of centenarians, their offspring and control subjects sex- and age-matched with offspring. The FI mean value was 0.47 (SD 0.13) in centenarians, 0.15 (SD 0.12) in their offspring, and 0.22 (SD 0.14) in controls (p < 0.001). The difference between offspring and controls was statistically significant (p = 0.003). The correlation between FI and age was significant in offspring (r = 0.46, p < 0.001), close to significance in controls (r = 0.25, p = 0.08) and not significant in centenarians. Our study confirms that FI is a marker of biological age useful to discriminate different degrees of frailty even at extremely advanced age.

Keywords

Frailty Frailty index Centenarians Biological aging 

Notes

Funding

This work was supported by the Italian Ministry of University and Research (PRIN 2006 and PRIN 2009 to DM).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights statement

All procedures involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Ethical approval

The protocol received approval from the Ethical Committee of the Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan (Prot. no. 2035, amendment 30/11/2011).

Informed consent

An informed consent was obtained from all participants.

References

  1. 1.
    Rockwood K, Mitnitski A (2007) Frailty in relation to the accumulation of deficits. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 62:722–727.  https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/62.7.722 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kwan JS, Lau BH, Cheung KS (2015) Toward a comprehensive model of frailty: an emerging concept from the Hong Kong centenarian study. J Am Med Dir Assoc 16:536 e531–537.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2015.03.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kim S, Welsh DA, Cherry KE et al (2013) Association of healthy aging with parental longevity. Age (Dordr) 35:1975–1982.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-012-9472-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gueresi P, Miglio R, Monti D et al (2013) Does the longevity of one or both parents influence the health status of their offspring? Exp Gerontol 48:395–400.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2013.02.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Skytthe A, Valensin S, Jeune B et al (2011) Design, recruitment, logistics, and data management of the GEHA (Genetics of Healthy Ageing) project. Exp Gerontol 46:934–945.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2011.08.005 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Searle SD, Mitnitski A, Gahbauer EA et al (2008) A standard procedure for creating a frailty index. BMC Geriatr 8:24.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-8-24 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Romero-Ortuno R (2014) The Frailty Index in Europeans: association with determinants of health. Geriatr Gerontol Int 14:420–429.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.12122 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim S, Welsh DA, Cherry KE, Myers L, Jazwinski SM (2013) Association of healthy aging with parental longevity. AGE 35:1975–1982.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-012-9472-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Franceschi C, Valensin S, Bonafe M et al (2000) The network and the remodeling theories of aging: historical background and new perspectives. Exp Gerontol 35:879–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kirkwood TB (2008) A systematic look at an old problem. Nature 451(7179):644–647.  https://doi.org/10.1038/451644a CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cesari M, Vellas B, Gambassi G (2013) The stress of aging. Exp Gerontol 48:451–456.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2012.10.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tedone E, Arosio B, Gussago C et al (2014) Leukocyte telomere length and prevalence of age-related diseases in semisupercentenarians, centenarians and centenarians’ offspring. Exp Gerontol 58:90–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2014.06.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Levine ME (2013) Modeling the rate of senescence: can estimated biological age predict mortality more accurately than chronological age? J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 68:667–674.  https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/gls233 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Horvath S, Pirazzini C, Bacalini MG et al (2015) Decreased epigenetic age of PBMCs from Italian semi-supercentenarians and their offspring. Aging (Albany NY) 7:1159–1170.  https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.100861 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ostan R, Monti D, Mari D et al (2018) Heterogeneity of thyroid function and impact of peripheral thyroxine deiodination in centenarians and semi-supercentenarians: association with functional status and mortality. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/gly194 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geriatric Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore PoliclinicoUniversity of MilanMilanItaly
  2. 2.Department of Clinical Sciences and Community HealthUniversity of MilanMilanItaly
  3. 3.Istituto Auxologico Italiano, IRCCS, Laboratorio Sperimentale di Ricerche di Neuroendocrinologia Geriatrica ed OncologicaCusano MilaninoItaly

Personalised recommendations