Abstract
Frailty has been linked to increased risk of COVID-19 mortality, but evidence is mainly limited to hospitalized older individuals and analyses in community samples are scarce. This study aims to assess and compare the predictive abilities of different frailty measures – the frailty phenotype (FP), frailty index (FI), and Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS), and comorbidity, measured using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), on COVID-19 mortality in a UK community sample of adults aged 52–86 years. We analyzed (i) the full sample of 428,754 UK Biobank participants and (ii) a subsample of 2,287 COVID-19 positive UK Biobank participants with data on COVID-19 outcomes between March 1 and September 21, 2020. COVID-19 positivity was confirmed by PCR, hospital records and/or death registers. Logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, smoking, ethnicity, and socioeconomic variables with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were used in the modelling. Overall, 391 individuals died of COVID-19. In the full sample, all frailty measures and the CCI were associated with COVID-19 mortality but only the HFRS and CCI improved the predictive ability of a model including age and sex, yielding AUCs>0.80. However, when restricting analyses to the COVID-19 positive subsample, which had an over-representation of frail individuals, similar improvement in AUCs was not observed in which only the CCI was significantly associated with COVID-19 mortality. Our results suggest that HFRS and CCI can be used in COVID-19 mortality risk stratification at the population level, but they show limited added value in COVID-19 positive individuals.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council (2018-02077, 2019-01272), the Loo & Hans Osterman Foundation, the Strategic Research Program in Epidemiology at Karolinska Institutet and the Karolinska Institutet Foundations.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval for this study is covered by the general ethics review for the UK Biobank, conducted by North West Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 16/NW/0274, 13 May 2016).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
UK Biobank is an open access resource. All bona fide researchers can apply to use its data for health-related research that is in the public interest (http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/register-apply).
