Stephanie A. Studenski

CONTEXT: Survival estimates help individualize goals of care for geriatric patients, but life tables fail to account for the great variability in survival. Physical performance measures, such as gait speed, might help account for variability, allowing clinicians to make more individualized estimates. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between gait speed and survival. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Pooled analysis of 9 cohort studies (collected between 1986 and 2000), using individual data from 34,485 community-dwelling older adults aged 65 years or older with baseline gait speed data, followed up for 6 to 21 years. Participants were a mean (SD) age of 73.5 (5.9) years; 59.6%, women; and 79.8%, white; and had a mean (SD) gait speed of 0.92 (0.27) m/s. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Survival rates and life expectancy. RESULTS: There were 17,528 deaths; the overall 5-year survival rate was 84.8% (confidence interval [CI], 79.6%-88.8%) and 10-year survival rate was 59.7% (95% CI, 46.5%-70.6%). Gait speed was associated with survival in all studies (pooled hazard ratio per 0.1 m/s, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.87-0.90; P < .001). Survival increased across the full range of gait speeds, with significant increments per 0.1 m/s. At age 75, predicted 10-year survival across the range of gait speeds ranged from 19% to 87% in men and from 35% to 91% in women. Predicted survival based on age, sex, and gait speed was as accurate as predicted based on age, sex, use of mobility aids, and self-reported function or as age, sex, chronic conditions, smoking history, blood pressure, body mass index, and hospitalization. CONCLUSION: In this pooled analysis of individual data from 9 selected cohorts, gait speed was associated with survival in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Although it has been demonstrated that physical performance measures predict incident disability in previously nondisabled older persons, the available data have not been fully developed to create usable methods for determining risk profiles in community-dwelling populations. Using several populations and different follow-up periods, this study replicates previous findings by using the Established Populations for the Epidemiologic Study of the Elderly (EPESE) performance battery and provides equations for the prediction of disability risk according to age, sex, and level of performance. METHODS: Tests of balance, time to walk 8 ft, and time to rise from a chair 5 times were administered to 4,588 initially nondisabled persons in the four sites of the EPESE and to 1,946 initially nondisabled persons in the Hispanic EPESE. Follow-up assessment for activity of daily living (ADL) and mobility-related disability occurred from 1 to 6 years later. RESULTS: In the EPESE, compared with those with the best performance (EPESE summary performance score of 10-12), the relative risks of mobility-related disability for those with scores of 4-6 ranged from 2.9 to 4.9 and the relative risk of disability for those with scores of 7-9 ranged from 1.5 to 2.1, with similar consistent results for ADL disability. The observed rates of incident disability according to performance level in the Hispanic EPESE agreed closely with rates predicted from models developed from the EPESE sites. Receiver operating characteristic curves showed that gait speed alone performed almost as well as the full battery in predicting incident disability. CONCLUSIONS: Performance tests of lower extremity function accurately predict disability across diverse populations. Equations derived from models using both the summary score and the gait speed alone allow for the estimation of risk of disability in community-dwelling populations and provide valuable information for estimating sample size for clinical trials of disability prevention.

A new clinically accessible measure of balance, functional reach (FR), is the difference between arm's length and maximal forward reach, using a fixed base of support. The purposes of this study were to (a) establish FR as a measure of the margin of stability versus the laboratory measure, center of pressure excursion (COPE); (b) test reliability and precision, and (c) determine factors that influence FR, including age and anthropometrics. We evaluated FR in 128 volunteers (age 21-87 years). FR was determined with a precise electronic device and a simple clinical apparatus (yardstick). FR correlates with COPE (Pearson r = .71) and is precise (coefficient of variation = 2.5%) and stable (intraclass correlation coefficient across days = .81). Age and height influence FR. FR is portable, inexpensive, reliable, precise, and a reasonable clinical approximator of the margin of stability. FR may be useful for detecting balance impairment, change in balance performance over time, and in the design of modified environments for impaired older persons.

BACKGROUND: Low muscle mass and weakness are common and potentially disabling in older adults, but in order to become recognized as a clinical condition, criteria for diagnosis should be based on clinically relevant thresholds and independently validated. The Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Biomarkers Consortium Sarcopenia Project used an evidence-based approach to develop these criteria. Initial findings were presented at a conference in May 2012, which generated recommendations that guided additional analyses to determine final recommended criteria. Details of the Project and its findings are presented in four accompanying manuscripts. METHODS: The Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Sarcopenia Project used data from nine sources of community-dwelling older persons: Age, Gene/Environment Susceptibility-Reykjavik Study, Boston Puerto Rican Health Study, a series of six clinical trials, Framingham Heart Study, Health, Aging, and Body Composition, Invecchiare in Chianti, Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study, Rancho Bernardo Study, and Study of Osteoporotic Fractures. Feedback from conference attendees was obtained via surveys and breakout groups. RESULTS: The pooled sample included 26,625 participants (57% women, mean age in men 75.2 [±6.1 SD] and in women 78.6 [±5.9] years). Conference attendees emphasized the importance of evaluating the influence of body mass on cutpoints. Based on the analyses presented in this series, the final recommended cutpoints for weakness are grip strength <26kg for men and <16kg for women, and for low lean mass, appendicular lean mass adjusted for body mass index <0.789 for men and <0.512 for women. CONCLUSIONS: These evidence-based cutpoints, based on a large and diverse population, may help identify participants for clinical trials and should be evaluated among populations with high rates of functional limitations.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the magnitude of small meaningful and substantial individual change in physical performance measures and evaluate their responsiveness. DESIGN: Secondary data analyses using distribution- and anchor-based methods to determine meaningful change. SETTING: Secondary analysis of data from an observational study and clinical trials of community-dwelling older people and subacute stroke survivors. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults with mobility disabilities in a strength training trial (n=100), subacute stroke survivors in an intervention trial (n=100), and a prospective cohort of community-dwelling older people (n=492). MEASUREMENTS: Gait speed, Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), 6-minute-walk distance (6MWD), and self-reported mobility. RESULTS: Most small meaningful change estimates ranged from 0.04 to 0.06 m/s for gait speed, 0.27 to 0.55 points for SPPB, and 19 to 22 m for 6MWD. Most substantial change estimates ranged from 0.08 to 0.14 m/s for gait speed, 0.99 to 1.34 points for SPPB, and 47 to 49 m for 6MWD. Based on responsiveness indices, per-group sample sizes for clinical trials ranged from 13 to 42 for substantial change and 71 to 161 for small meaningful change. CONCLUSION: Best initial estimates of small meaningful change are near 0.05 m/s for gait speed, 0.5 points for SPPB, and 20 m for 6MWD and of substantial change are near 0.10 m/s for gait speed, 1.0 point for SPPB, and 50 m for 6MWD. For clinical use, substantial change in these measures and small change in gait speed and 6MWD, but not SPPB, are detectable. For research use, these measures yield feasible sample sizes for detecting meaningful change.