Search

The article highlights the U13 Bench-to-Bedside (B2B) conference series, a collaborative effort by the American Geriatrics Society (AGS) and the National Institute on Aging. Topics include the transition of the AGS/National Institute on Aging (NIA) U13 B2B conference series from 2004 to 2017, progressive exploration of key issues in geriatrics reflected in the series of conferences, and an overview of the conferences in the series from 2018 to 2023.

Interventions to preserve functional independence in older adults are critically needed to optimize ‘successful aging’ among the large and increasing population of older adults in the United States. For most aging adults, the management of chronic diseases is the most common and impactful risk factor for loss of functional independence. Chronic disease management inherently involves the learning and adaptation of new behaviors, such as adopting or modifying physical activity habits and managing weight. Despite the importance of chronic disease management in older adults, vanishingly few individuals optimally manage their health behavior in the service of chronic disease stabilization to preserve functional independence. Contemporary conceptual models of chronic disease management and health habit theory suggest that this lack of optimal management may result from an underappreciated distinction within the health behavior literature: the behavioral domains critical for initiation of new behaviors (Initiation Phase) are largely distinct from those that facilitate their maintenance (Maintenance Phase). Psychological factors, particularly experiential acceptance and trait levels of openness are critical to engagement with new health behaviors, willingness to make difficult lifestyle changes, and the ability to tolerate aversive affective responses in the process. Cognitive factors, particularly executive function, are critical to learning new skills, using them effectively across different areas of life and contextual demands, and updating of skills to facilitate behavioral maintenance. Emerging data therefore suggests that individuals with greater executive function are better able to sustain behavior changes, which in turn protects against cognitive decline. In addition, social and structural supports of behavior change serve a critical buffering role across phases of behavior change. The present review attempts to address these gaps by proposing a novel biobehavioral intervention framework that incorporates both individual-level and social support system-level variables for the purpose of treatment tailoring. Our intervention framework triangulates on the central importance of self-regulatory functioning, proposing that both cognitive and psychological mechanisms ultimately influence an individuals’ ability to engage in different aspects of self-management (individual level) in the service of maintaining independence. Importantly, the proposed linkages of cognitive and affective functioning align with emerging individual difference frameworks, suggesting that lower levels of cognitive and/or psychological flexibility represent an intermediate phenotype of risk. Individuals exhibiting selfregulatory lapses either due to the inability to regulate their emotional responses or due to the presence of executive functioning impairments are therefore the most likely to require assistance to preserve functional independence. In addition, these vulnerabilities will be more easily observable for individuals requiring greater complexity of self-management behavioral demands (e.g. complexity of medication regimen) and/or with lesser social support. Our proposed framework also intuits several distinct intervention pathways based on the profile of selfregulatory behaviors: we propose that individuals with intact affect regulation and impaired executive function will preferentially respond to ‘top-down’ training approaches (e.g., strategy and process work). Individuals with intact executive function and impaired affect regulation will respond to ‘bottom-up’ approaches (e.g., graded exposure). And individuals with impairments in both may require treatments targeting caregiving or structural supports, particularly in the context of elevated behavioral demands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objectives of this article are to introduce a conceptual framework for physical resilience in the context of ageing and to discuss key elements and challenges in the design of studies of physical resilience after health stressors. Advancing age is associated with increasing exposure to multiple stressors and declining capacity to respond to health stressors. Resilience is defined broadly as the ability to resist or recover well from the adverse effects of a health stressor. In ageing‐related study designs of physical resilience after a health stressor, this dynamic resilience response can be observed as changes in repeated measures of function or health status in various domains important to older adults. Methodologic issues in selecting the study population, defining the stressor, covariates, outcomes, and analytic strategies are highlighted in the context of an ongoing prospective cohort study of physical resilience after total knee replacement surgery. The article concludes with approaches to intervention development to optimize resilience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Resilience, which relates to one's ability to respond to stressors, typically declines with age and the development of comorbid conditions in older organisms. Although progress has been made to improve our understanding of resilience in older adults, disciplines have employed different frameworks and definitions to study various aspects of older adults' response to acute or chronic stressors. "Overview of the Resilience World: State of the Science," a bench‐to‐bedside conference on October 12–13, 2022, was sponsored by the American Geriatrics Society and National Institute on Aging. This conference, summarized in this report, explored commonalities and differences among the frameworks of resilience most commonly used in aging research in the three domains of resilience: physical, cognitive, and psychosocial. These three main domains are intertwined, and stressors in one domain can lead to effects in other domains. The themes of the conference sessions included underlying contributors to resilience, the dynamic nature of resilience throughout the life span, and the role of resilience in health equity. Although participants did not agree on a single definition of "resilience(s)," they identified common core elements of a definition that can be applied to all domains and noted unique features that are domain specific. The presentations and discussions led to recommendations for new longitudinal studies of the impact of exposures to stressors on resilience in older adults, the use of new and existing cohort study data, natural experiments (including the COVID‐19 pandemic), and preclinical models for resilience research, as well as translational research to bring findings on resilience to patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Older adults with similar health conditions often experience widely divergent outcomes following health stressors. Variable recovery after a health stressor may be due in part to differences in biological mechanisms at the molecular, cellular, or system level, that are elicited in response to stressors. We describe the PRIME‐KNEE study as an example of ongoing research to validate provocative clinical tests and biomarkers that predict resilience to specific health stressors. Methods: PRIME‐KNEE is an ongoing, prospective cohort study that will enroll 250 adults ≥60 years undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Data are collected at baseline (pre‐surgery), during surgery, daily for 7 days after surgery, and at 1, 2, 4, and 6 months post‐surgery. Provocative tests include a cognition‐motor dual‐task walking test, cerebrovascular reactivity assessed by functional near‐infrared spectroscopy, peripheral blood mononuclear cell reactivity ex vivo to lipopolysaccharide toxin and influenza vaccine, and heart rate variability during surgery. Cognitive, psychological, and physical performance batteries are collected at baseline to estimate prestressor reserve. Demographics, medications, comorbidities, and stressor characteristics are abstracted from the electronic medical record and via participant interview. Blood‐based biomarkers are collected at baseline and postoperative day 1. Repeated measures after surgery include items from a delirium assessment tool and pain scales administered daily by telephone for 7 days and cognitive change index (participant and informant), lower extremity activities of daily living, pain scales, and step counts assessed by Garmin actigraphy at 1, 2, 4, and 6 months after surgery. Statistical models use these measures to characterize resilience phenotypes and evaluate prestressor clinical indicators associated with poststressor resilience. Conclusion: If PRIME‐KNEE validates feasible clinical tests and biomarkers that predict recovery trajectories in older surgical patients, these tools may inform surgical decision‐making, guide pre‐habilitation efforts, and elucidate mechanisms underlying resilience. This study design could motivate future geriatric research on resilience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES: Defining common patterns of recovery after an acute health stressor (resiliency groups) has both clinical and research implications. We sought to identify groups of patients with similar recovery patterns across 10 outcomes following hip fracture (stressor) and to determine the most important predictors of resiliency group membership. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of three prospective cohort studies. SETTING: Participants were recruited from various hospitals in the Baltimore Hip Studies network and followed for up to 1 year in their residence (home or facility). PARTICIPANTS: Community‐dwelling adults aged 65 years or older with recent surgical repair of a hip fracture (n = 541). MEASUREMENTS: Self‐reported physical function and activity measures using validated scales were collected at baseline (within 15‐22 d of fracture), 2, 6, and 12 months. Physical performance tests were administered at all follow‐up visits. Stressor characteristics, comorbidities, and psychosocial and environmental factors were collected at baseline via participant report and chart abstraction. Latent class profile analysis was used to identify resiliency groups based on recovery trajectories across 10 outcome measures and logistic regression models to identify factors associated with those groups. RESULTS: Latent profile analysis identified three resiliency groups that had similar patterns across the 10 outcome measures and were defined as "high resilience" (n = 163 [30.1%]), "medium resilience" (n = 242 [44.7%]), and "low resilience" (n = 136 [25.2%]). Recovery trajectories for the outcome measures are presented for each resiliency group. Comparing highest with the medium‐ and low‐resilience groups, self‐reported pre‐fracture function was by far the strongest predictor of high‐resilience group membership with area under the curve (AUC) of.84. Demographic factors, comorbidities, stressor characteristics, environmental factors, and psychosocial characteristics were less predictive, but several factors remained significant in a multivariable model (AUC =.88). CONCLUSION: These three resiliency groups following hip fracture may be useful for understanding mediators of physical resilience. They may provide a more detailed description of recovery patterns in multiple outcomes for use in clinical decision making. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2519–2527, 2019 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Geriatricians are often confronted with unexpected health outcomes in older adults with complex multimorbidity. Aging researchers have recently called for a focus on physical resilience as a new approach to explaining such outcomes. Physical resilience, defined as the ability to resist functional decline or recover health following a stressor, is an emerging construct. Methods: Based on an outline of the state‐of‐the‐art in research on the measurement of physical resilience, this article describes what tests to predict resilience can already be used in clinical practice and which innovations are to be expected soon. Results: An older adult's recovery potential is currently predicted by static tests of physiological reserves. Although geriatric medicine typically adopts a multidisciplinary view of the patient and implicitly performs resilience management to a certain extent, clinical management of older adults can benefit from explicitly applying the dynamical concept of resilience. Two crucial leads for advancing our capacity to measure and manage the resilience of individual patients are advocated: first, performing multiple repeated measurements around a stressor can provide insight about the patient's dynamic responses to stressors; and, second, linking psychological and physiological subsystems, as proposed by network studies on resilience, can provide insight into dynamic interactions involved in a resilient response. Conclusion: A big challenge still lies ahead in translating the dynamical concept of resilience into clinical tools and guidelines. As a first step in bridging this gap, this article outlines what opportunities clinicians and researchers can already exploit to improve prediction, understanding, and management of resilience of older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2650–2657, 2019 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding the factors that influence functional ability over the life course is integral to identifying clinical and public health policies to facilitate successful aging. The World Health Organization has advocated a conceptual framework to clarify the policy discussion. We have sought to translate this general framework into an explicit system dynamics model of the interaction of physiological loss, stressors and endogenous responses to produce a familiar variety of trajectories of functional ability over the life courses. Simulation experiments were implemented for both a 30‐month duration with only one major stressor; and for the life course with an initial major stressor and subsequent stressors determined by the level of functional ability. For both contexts, variations in the few parameters in the scenarios led to a realistic range of trajectories of function over time. © 2019 System Dynamics Society [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Resilience has been described in the psychosocial literature as the capacity to maintain or regain well-being during or after adversity. Physical resilience is a newer concept that is highly relevant to successful aging. Our objective was to characterize the emerging construct of resilience as it pertains to physical health in older adults, and to identify gaps and opportunities to advance research in this area.Methods: We conducted a systematic review to identify English language papers published through January 2015 that apply the term "resilience" in relation to physical health in older adults. We applied a modified framework analysis to characterize themes in implicit or explicit definitions of physical resilience.Results: Of 1,078 abstracts identified, 49 articles met criteria for inclusion. Sixteen were letters or concept papers, and only one was an intervention study. Definitions of physical resilience spanned cellular to whole-person levels, incorporated many outcome measures, and represented three conceptual themes: resilience as a trait, trajectory, or characteristic/capacity.Conclusions: Current biomedical literature lacks consensus on how to define and measure physical resilience. We propose a working definition of physical resilience at the whole person level: a characteristic which determines one's ability to resist or recover from functional decline following health stressor(s). We present a conceptual framework that encompasses the related construct of physiologic reserve. We discuss gaps and opportunities in measurement, interactions across contributors to physical resilience, and points of intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented which addresses the authors' views about physical resilience in older people, and it mentions how physical resilience differs from frailty. According to the article, physical resilience is an individual's ability to adapt and deal with functional decline following the onset of acute or chronic health issues. Physiological vulnerability to a stressor such as surgery is addressed, along with the impact of biological processes on resilience.

The article discusses the use of physical robustness and resilience as key components of measuring the ability of older people to resist or recover from functional decline following health stressors. Topics addressed include the difference between the terms resistance to and recovery from, the use of the term 'robustness' in the ability to resist the deviation from baseline and in a low risk of developing a particular disease, and the distinction between disease development and symptoms.

A response from the author of the article regarding the biological resilience and recovery of older patients who are hospitalized with acute illnesses, is presented.