TY - JOUR
T1 - Development and validation of an inflammatory-frailty index for kidney transplantation
AU - Haugen, Christine E.
AU - Gross, Alden
AU - Chu, Nadia M.
AU - Norman, Silas P.
AU - Brennan, Daniel C.
AU - Xue, Qian Li
AU - Walston, Jeremy
AU - Segev, Dorry L.
AU - McAdams-Demarco, Mara
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the National Institute of Aging: grant numbers F32AG053025
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America.
PY - 2021/3/1
Y1 - 2021/3/1
N2 - Background: Physical frailty phenotype is characterized by decreased physiologic reserve to stressors and associated with poor outcomes, such as delirium and mortality, that may result from post-kidney transplant (KT) inflammation. Despite a hypothesized underlying pro-inflammatory state, conventional measures of frailty typically do not incorporate inflammatory biomarkers directly. Among KT candidates and recipients, we evaluated the inclusion of inflammatory biomarkers with traditional physical frailty phenotype components. Methods: Among 1154 KT candidates and recipients with measures of physical frailty phenotype and inflammation (interleukin 6 [IL6], tumor necrosis factor alpha [TNFα], C-reactive protein [CRP]) at 2 transplant centers (2009-2017), we evaluated construct validity of inflammatory-frailty using latent class analysis. Inflammatory-frailty measures combined 5 physical frailty phenotype components plus the addition of an individual inflammatory biomarkers, separately (highest tertiles) as a sixth component. We then used Kaplan-Meier methods and adjusted Cox proportional hazards to assess post-KT mortality risk by inflammatory-frailty (n = 378); Harrell's C-statistics assessed risk prediction (discrimination). Results: Based on fit criteria, a 2-class solution (frail vs nonfrail) for inflammatory-frailty was the best-fitting model. Five-year survival (frail vs nonfrail) was: 81% versus 93% (IL6-frailty), 87% versus 89% (CRP-frailty), and 83% versus 91% (TNFα-frailty). Mortality was 2.07-fold higher for IL6-frail recipients (95% CI: 1.03-4.19, p =. 04); there were no associations between the mortality and the other inflammatory-frailty indices (TNFα-frail: 1.88, 95% CI: 0.95-3.74, p =. 07; CRP-frail: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.52-2.03, p =. 95). However, none of the frailty-inflammatory indices (all C-statistics = 0.71) improved post-KT mortality risk prediction over the physical frailty phenotype (C-statistics = 0.70). Conclusions: Measurement of IL6-frailty at transplantation can inform which patients should be targeted for pre-KT interventions. However, the traditional physical frailty phenotype is sufficient for post-KT mortality risk prediction.
AB - Background: Physical frailty phenotype is characterized by decreased physiologic reserve to stressors and associated with poor outcomes, such as delirium and mortality, that may result from post-kidney transplant (KT) inflammation. Despite a hypothesized underlying pro-inflammatory state, conventional measures of frailty typically do not incorporate inflammatory biomarkers directly. Among KT candidates and recipients, we evaluated the inclusion of inflammatory biomarkers with traditional physical frailty phenotype components. Methods: Among 1154 KT candidates and recipients with measures of physical frailty phenotype and inflammation (interleukin 6 [IL6], tumor necrosis factor alpha [TNFα], C-reactive protein [CRP]) at 2 transplant centers (2009-2017), we evaluated construct validity of inflammatory-frailty using latent class analysis. Inflammatory-frailty measures combined 5 physical frailty phenotype components plus the addition of an individual inflammatory biomarkers, separately (highest tertiles) as a sixth component. We then used Kaplan-Meier methods and adjusted Cox proportional hazards to assess post-KT mortality risk by inflammatory-frailty (n = 378); Harrell's C-statistics assessed risk prediction (discrimination). Results: Based on fit criteria, a 2-class solution (frail vs nonfrail) for inflammatory-frailty was the best-fitting model. Five-year survival (frail vs nonfrail) was: 81% versus 93% (IL6-frailty), 87% versus 89% (CRP-frailty), and 83% versus 91% (TNFα-frailty). Mortality was 2.07-fold higher for IL6-frail recipients (95% CI: 1.03-4.19, p =. 04); there were no associations between the mortality and the other inflammatory-frailty indices (TNFα-frail: 1.88, 95% CI: 0.95-3.74, p =. 07; CRP-frail: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.52-2.03, p =. 95). However, none of the frailty-inflammatory indices (all C-statistics = 0.71) improved post-KT mortality risk prediction over the physical frailty phenotype (C-statistics = 0.70). Conclusions: Measurement of IL6-frailty at transplantation can inform which patients should be targeted for pre-KT interventions. However, the traditional physical frailty phenotype is sufficient for post-KT mortality risk prediction.
KW - Frailty
KW - Inflammation
KW - Kidney transplantation
KW - Validity
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85102322094&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85102322094&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/gerona/glaa167
DO - 10.1093/gerona/glaa167
M3 - Article
C2 - 32619229
AN - SCOPUS:85102322094
SN - 1079-5006
VL - 76
SP - 470
EP - 477
JO - Journals of Gerontology - Series A Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences
JF - Journals of Gerontology - Series A Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences
IS - 3
ER -