Among adults of all ages and older adults, lower kidney function is associated with worse cognitive function.1−5 However, even with restoration of kidney function, cognitive impairment affects up to 58% of kidney transplant (KT) recipients of all ages.6 Transplant recipients, in particular, rely on intact cognitive function to maintain overall health. They must adhere to complex medication regimens and manage outpatient clinic visits and tests; lack of such adherence is a major contributor to graft loss and other adverse KT outcomes.7,8 To date, studies that have compared cognitive performance measures pre- and post-KT have been smaller, been cross-sectional, and/or lacked longer-term repeated measures of cognitive function; however, they collectively suggest that cognitive function improves from baseline levels up to 1 year after successful KT.3,9−14 Cognitive trajectories beyond 1 year are understudied, but they are critical to understanding the balance between restoration of kidney function and aging. As KT recipients age and live longer with a functioning graft,15 it is unclear whether they experience a decline in cognitive function as observed among older adults.16−19
Frailty, a syndrome conceptualized as the body’s inability to respond efficiently to chronic and acute stressors, is distinct from but related to disability, comorbidity, and cognitive impairment,20−27 and it is most widely measured using the physical frailty phenotype (PFP),28 which was initially described by Fried et al.25 among community-dwelling older adults.27 In studies of older adults, frailty is associated with worse cognitive function.23,24 The PFP has since been shown to be an important predictor of adverse outcomes in ESRD and KT populations.29−33 It occurs in approximately 20% of KT recipients of all ages,34 and it has been identified as a key risk factor for poor health outcomes, including quality of life, delirium, delayed graft function, hospital length of stay, early hospital readmission, mycophenolate mofetil intolerance, and mortality.30,31,34−38 One suggested pathway linking frailty to adverse health outcomes is through behavioral and medical care changes affected by poor cognitive function; however, among KT recipients, it remains unclear whether frailty is analogously associated with worse cognitive performance as observed among patients of all ages initiating hemodialysis35 and older adults generally.23,25 Additionally, the association between pre-KT frailty and post-KT cognitive trajectory in the short term and beyond 1 year is unknown. Specifically, it remains unclear whether frail recipients, with higher susceptibility to surgical stressors, experience the same post-KT improvements in cognitive function that have been found among KT recipients generally9−14 and whether they experience cognitive decline observed with aging.16−19 It is likely that, in facing stressors introduced from surgery and consumption of immunosuppressive medications post-KT, frail recipients experience short-term mitigated improvements and possible cognitive decline as they age with a functioning graft compared with nonfrail recipients.
To better understand post-KT cognitive trajectories among frail and nonfrail recipients, we conducted a longitudinal study of 665 adult KT recipients (≥18 years of age). The goals of this study were to (1) assess the short- (intervals ≤1 year) and medium-term (1–4 years) post-KT cognitive trajectories among all adult KT recipients, (2) assess whether cognitive performance levels differed by frailty at KT admission, and (3) test whether short- and medium-term post-KT cognitive trajectories differed by frailty ascertained at KT admission. Understanding the relationship between KT, frailty, and cognitive function could provide evidence for developing strategies to mitigate cognitive impairment as part of clinical practice and the decision-making process for KT candidates.
Methods
Study Design
We leveraged an ongoing two-center cohort study (from December 2008 to March 2017) of KT recipients ages 18 years old and older. Study participants were enrolled in the study at KT admission, where they were assessed for frailty and cognitive performance as well as activities of daily living (ADLs), instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and Centers for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D). We followed participants longitudinally as part of routine clinical care at approximately 1, 3, 6, and 12 months and then yearly up to 4 years post-KT. Recipient, donor, and transplant factors were either self-reported and/or abstracted from medical records, including sex, age, race, education, body mass index, history of cardiovascular disease, history of diabetes, the Charlson Comorbidity Index (modified for patients with ESRD),39,40 cause of ESRD, previous transplant, time on dialysis, type of dialysis, donor type, recipient eGFR, immunosuppressive medications, and whether they experienced acute rejection within 1 year post-KT.
Of the 1101 KT recipients enrolled in the cohort study, we excluded KT recipients with three or more of the five frailty criteria missing at time of admission for KT (n excluded =37), consistent with standard practice,21 as well as those without cognitive performance measures (n excluded =399). Our analytic population was composed of 665 recipients from the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland (n=594) and the University of Michigan Medical Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan (n=71) followed for up to 4 years. Individuals who were included in analyses did not differ significantly from individuals who were excluded by age, sex, race, cognitive impairment status, Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS) score, frailty status, time on dialysis, self-reported quality of life, ADLs, or IADLs (P>0.05).
All clinical and research activities being reported are consistent with the Declaration of Helsinki and the Declaration of Istanbul. The institutional review boards of Johns Hopkins Hospital and the University of Michigan approved this study, and all enrolled participants provided written informed consent.
Frailty
The PFP, a validated tool to measure frailty in ESRD and KT populations,29−32,37,41 was ascertained at KT admission (pre-KT). The PFP is on the basis of five criteria: shrinking (self-report of unintentional weight loss of >10 pounds [dry weight] in the past year), weakness (grip strength below an established sex- and body mass index–based cutoff using a handheld dynamometer), exhaustion (self-report on the basis of two questions from the CES-D42), low activity (kilocalories per week below an established cutoff on the basis of the Minnesota Leisure Time Physical Activity questionnaire), and slowness (walking time of 15 feet below an established sex- and height-based cutoff).25 Each of the criteria was scored as zero or one, representing absence or presence of that component, respectively, and the scores were summed to create a total score ranging from zero to five. Scores of three to five were defined as frail as previously determined by our group in ESRD and KT populations.29−31,33−38,43,44
Global Cognitive Function
We measured global cognitive function using the 3MS.45,46 The 3MS is a validated verbal test with 15 items spanning multiple domains, including orientation, attention, language, and memory, with scores ranging from zero to 100, where higher scores represent better cognitive function. The 3MS presents an improvement in sensitivity for mild cognitive impairment in community studies over the traditional 30-point Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE),45−47 and it has a higher test-retest reliability (between 0.68 and 0.77) compared with the MMSE (between 0.48 and 0.65).48 Change in cognitive function after KT was the main outcome of interest. Consistent with prior studies, cognitive impairment was defined as a 3MS score <80 (−1 SD).38,47,49,50
Statistical Analyses
Differences in participant characteristics and cognitive scores by frailty were tested using t tests to compare unadjusted means for normally distributed continuous variables, Kruskal–Wallis tests to compare unadjusted means for non-normally distributed continuous variables, and Fisher exact tests to compare proportions for categorical variables.
We tested whether frailty was cross-sectionally associated with cognitive performance scores at KT admission and then compared post-KT cognitive trajectories by pre-KT frailty using a mixed effects model with random slope (time) and intercept (person) to describe repeated measures of cognitive scores. An unstructured correlation structure was selected for the random effects to generate the best possible model fit, allowing the model to directly calculate variance and covariance values reflected by the data. We accounted for nonlinearity using splines to examine changing trajectories over several different time periods: the first 12 weeks (3 months), 12–24 weeks (3–6 months), 24–52 weeks (6 months to 1 year), and 52–208 weeks (1–4 years) post-KT. Intervals were determined on the basis of (1) clinically relevant time points and (2) knowledge obtained through thorough exploratory data analysis. Between years 1 and 4, overall trajectories and trajectories by frailty status were approximately linear (Supplemental Table 1), and therefore, we chose not to include splines to avoid potential bias introduced by overfitting. We quantified rates of cognitive change (points per week) by pre-KT frailty using interaction terms by follow-up time and each spline term. To test the independent association between frailty and cognitive change, we adjusted for recipient, donor, and transplant factors: age, sex, race, education, HRQOL, time on dialysis, clinical site, donor type (live or deceased), immunosuppressive medications (any induction and triple therapy [tacrolimus/mycophenolate mofetil/steroid]), recipient eGFR at admission and discharge, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index adapted for patients with ESRD at KT admission.40 As strongly recommended by prior research on cognitive change, we did not control for baseline cognitive performance to avoid potential bias that could erroneously inflate our estimates.51 Additionally, we divided the frailty-cognitive change coefficient (converted to years) by the years of age coefficient to obtain the effect of frailty in our data in terms of number of years older at baseline. To assess whether the association between pre-KT frailty and post-KT cognitive change was modified by age, sex, race, education, or pre-KT cognitive impairment, we tested for interaction by each of the factors in separate models using a Wald test.
We conducted a sensitivity analysis addressing ceiling effects in cognitive testing by using a random effects Tobit model, a method conceived to estimate linear relationships when there is left or right censoring in the measured outcome.52 We additionally addressed potential effects of general attrition from those lost to follow-up due to withdrawal as well as those who had a competing risk before the end of follow-up, such as death or graft loss, assuming missingness at random by comparing results from two approaches: (1) multiple imputations using chained equations, leveraging auxiliary variables associated with missingness, in conjunction with generalized estimating equations and (2) inverse probability weighting in conjunction with generalized estimating equations.53−58 We also accounted for the potential dynamic relationship between frailty and cognitive decline post-KT by examining frailty as a time-varying factor.
Results
Study Population
Of 665 KT recipients followed for a median of 1.5 years (interquartile range [IQR], 0.7–3.4; total person-years =1437.8) and a median of 4.0 visits (IQR, 2.0–5.0), the mean age was 52.0 years old (SD=14.2), 61.2% were men, and 35.8% self-reported as black. Before KT, the median time on dialysis was 2.6 years (IQR, 1.1–5.0). Post-KT, 38 experienced acute rejection within 1 year, 19 experienced graft loss, and 26 died during follow-up.
Cognitive Function among All KT Recipients
Among the 665 KT recipients, 48 (7.2%) had cognitive impairment at KT admission. Before accounting for nonlinearity, the mean score at KT admission was 93.7 (SEM=1.4), and the mean cognitive function improved over the 4-year period (slope =0.01 points per week; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.00 to 0.01) after adjustment for recipient, donor, and transplant factors. However, on exploratory data analysis, there was the suggestion of nonlinearity of the cognitive trajectories present. After additionally accounting for this nonlinearity of cognitive trajectories among all KT recipients, the mean cognitive score at KT admission was 94.1 (SEM=0.9). After adjustment, the mean cognitive function improved in the first 3 months post-KT from baseline levels (slope =0.15 points per week; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.21) and then, remained stable through the 4 years of follow-up (Figure 1).
;)
Figure 1.: Global cognitive trajectories (Modified Mini-Mental State Examination [3MS] scores) improve among all adult kidney transplant (KT) recipients post-KT (
n=665) in the short-term. Adjusted trajectories were estimated for 665 KT recipients ages 18+ years old using a mixed effects model with random slope (time) and intercept (person) controlling for baseline age (centered at 55 years old), sex, race, education, self-reported quality of life, donor type (live or deceased), the Charlson Comorbidity Index adapted for patients with ESRD,
39 , 40 and recipient eGFR at the time of admission and discharge as well as immunosuppressive medications (induction and triple therapy including tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroid). We accounted for nonlinearity by using splines to examine trajectories over several different time periods: the first 3 months, 3–6 months, 6 months to 1 year, and 1–4 years post-KT. Baseline (time 0) represents the time of KT admission or “pre-KT.” The thick line represents the average overall global cognitive trajectory across time; thin lines represent the 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). KT recipients had significant improvements in cognitive performance in the first 3 months post-KT. *Rates of change (points per week) that are statistically significant within the respective interval at a cutoff of
P=0.05.
Pre-KT Frailty
Among the 665 KT recipients, 15.0% were frail at KT admission. Frail recipients were followed for a median of 1.8 years (IQR, 1.0–3.6; total person-years =242.0), whereas nonfrail recipients were followed for a median of 1.5 years (IQR, 0.6–3.3; total person-years =1195.7). Frail KT recipients were older (mean =55.0 years old, SD=13.7) on average compared with nonfrail recipients (mean =51.4 years old, SD=14.3), and they were significantly more likely than nonfrail KT recipients to have depressive symptoms (26.0% versus 8.5%), disabilities (ADLs: 15.0% versus 3.4%; IADLs: 30.0% versus 12.9%), and poor HRQOL (18.0% versus 7.6%) (Table 1). The proportion of frail recipients who experienced rejection within 1 year post-KT (5.0%) did not differ from that of nonfrail recipients (5.9%; P=0.73).
Table 1. -
Characteristics of adult kidney transplant recipients by
frailty status at the time of kidney transplant admission (
n=665)
| Characteristic |
Nonfrail, n=565 |
Frail, n=100 |
P Value |
| Years on dialysis |
2.6 (1.0–4.9) |
3.0 (1.1–5.6) |
0.55 |
| Age, yr |
51.4 (14.3) |
55.0 (13.7) |
0.02 |
| Women |
214 (37.9) |
44 (44.0) |
0.27 |
| Race |
|
|
0.10 |
| White |
327 (57.9) |
47 (47.0) |
|
| Black |
193 (34.2) |
45 (45.0) |
|
| Other |
45 (8.0) |
8 (8.0) |
|
| Education |
|
|
0.44 |
| Grade school |
26 (4.6) |
7 (7.0) |
|
| High school |
186 (32.9) |
39 (39.0) |
|
| Technical degree (2 yr) |
46 (8.1) |
6 (6.0) |
|
| College |
175 (31.0) |
24 (24.0) |
|
| Graduate school |
125 (22.1) |
18 (18.0) |
|
| Annual household income |
|
|
0.13 |
| <$50,000 |
111 (19.6) |
29 (29.0) |
|
| $50,000–$100,000 |
125 (22.1) |
22 (22.0) |
|
| Over $100,000 |
165 (29.2) |
21 (21.0) |
|
| Deceased donor |
330 (58.4) |
64 (64.0) |
0.32 |
| IADL |
73 (12.9) |
30 (30.0) |
<0.001 |
| ADL |
19 (3.4) |
15 (15.0) |
<0.001 |
| Quality of life |
|
|
<0.001 |
| Excellent |
42 (7.4) |
4 (4.0) |
|
| Very good |
112 (19.8) |
10 (10.0) |
|
| Good |
213 (37.7) |
31 (31.0) |
|
| Fair |
146 (25.8) |
35 (35.0) |
|
| Poor |
43 (7.6) |
18 (18.0) |
|
| Depressive symptoms |
48 (8.5) |
26 (26.0) |
<0.001 |
| Charlson Comorbidity Index |
|
|
0.36 |
| 0 |
296 (52.4) |
48 (48.0) |
|
| 1 |
79 (14.0) |
10 (10.0) |
|
| 2 |
84 (14.9) |
15 (15.0) |
|
| 3 |
46 (8.1) |
11 (11.0) |
|
| 4+ |
60 (10.6) |
16 (16.0) |
|
| Recipient eGFR |
|
|
|
| At admission |
8.4 (5.8–12.3) |
8.3 (6.1–12.5) |
0.85 |
| At discharge |
43.8 (18.7–65.9) |
49.5 (19.2–78.7) |
0.28 |
| Immunosuppressive medications |
|
|
|
| Induction |
510 (90.3) |
93 (93.0) |
0.46 |
| Triple therapy (TAC/MMF/steroids) |
514 (91.0) |
91 (91.0) |
>0.99 |
| Follow-up, yr |
1.5 (0.6–3.3) |
1.8 (1.0–3.6) |
0.13 |
| Visits |
3 (2–5) |
4 (3–5) |
0.34 |
N (%) for categorical characteristics and mean (SD) for continuous characteristics are presented. For years on dialysis, years of follow-up, and number of visits, median and IQR are presented.
Frailty is defined by the Fried
frailty phenotype. Education refers to the highest education level attained. Charlson Comorbidity Index refers to the index that was modified for patients with ESRD.
39,40 IADL, instrumental activity of daily living; ADL, activity of daily living; TAC, tacrolimus; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil.
Frailty and Cognitive Function at KT Admission
At time of KT, frail recipients had significantly lower unadjusted cognitive performance (median =93.0; IQR, 87.0–96.5) compared with nonfrail recipients (median =96.0; IQR, 91.0–98.0). However, the proportion of frail recipients with cognitive impairment (11.0%) at baseline did not differ from that of nonfrail recipients (6.6%; P=0.14). Distributions across the 3MS score components, including psychomotor skills, memory, and identification/association, also differed by frailty status (Table 2). On the basis of exploratory data analysis, we decided to examine differences by frailty status, accounting for nonlinear trajectories. After accounting for nonlinear cognitive trajectories and adjusting for recipient, donor, and transplant factors, frail recipients had lower mean cognitive scores (mean =89.0) compared with nonfrail recipients (mean =90.8) at KT admission (difference =−1.8 points; 95% CI, −3.3 to −0.3) (Table 3).
Table 2. -
Unadjusted cognitive performance scores by
frailty status at the time of admission for kidney transplant
| Cognitive Function |
Overall, n=665 |
Nonfrail, n=565 |
Frail, n=100 |
| Cognitive impairment (3MS<80), n (%) |
48 (7.2) |
37 (6.6) |
11 (11.0) |
| 3MS total score |
95.0 |
96.0
a
|
93.0
a
|
| Psychomotor skills |
21.0 |
21.0
a
|
21.0
a
|
| Memory |
21.0 |
21.0
a
|
20.0
a
|
| Identification/association |
24.0 |
24.0
a
|
23.0
a
|
| Orientation |
25.0 |
25.0 |
25.0 |
| Concentration/calculation |
7.0 |
7.0 |
7.0 |
Median scores are presented for the 3MS total score (range, 0–100) and the 3MS score components, include psychomotor skills (range, 0–21), memory (range, 0–21), identification/association (range, 0–26), orientation (range, 0–25), and concentration/calculation (range, 0–7). 3MS, Modified Mini-Mental State Examination.
aStatistically significant difference by frailty status at a level of 0.05.
Table 3. -
Adjusted estimates of global cognitive trajectories among kidney transplant recipients overall and by
frailty status (
n=665)
| Time of Assessment |
Estimated Score Points |
Difference in Estimated Score (95% Confidence Interval), Points |
Estimated Rate of Change during Interval (95% Confidence Interval), Points per Week |
| Overall |
Frail |
Nonfrail |
Absolute Difference |
Net Effect |
Frail |
Nonfrail |
Difference |
| Pre-KT |
90.4 |
89.0 |
90.8 |
−1.8
a
|
— |
— |
— |
— |
| Post-KT, wk |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ≤12 |
91.2 |
91.6 |
92.5 |
−0.9 |
−0.91 (−3.06 to 1.23) |
0.22 (0.05 to 0.29)
a
|
0.14 (0.08 to 0.21)
a
|
0.08 (−0.10 to 0.26) |
| 12–24 |
91.8 |
90.8 |
92.3 |
−1.5 |
−0.30 (−2.55 to 1.95) |
−0.07 (−0.29 to 0.14) |
−0.02 (−0.11 to 0.06) |
−0.05 (−0.29 to 0.18) |
| 24–52 |
92.0 |
92.6 |
92.1 |
0.5 |
−2.30 (−4.23 to −0.36)
a
|
0.07 (−0.03 to 0.16) |
−0.01 (−0.04 to 0.03) |
0.07 (−0.03 to 0.17) |
| 52–208 |
91.7 |
87.4 |
92.9 |
−5.5
a
|
3.70 (0.20 to 7.20)
a
|
−0.03 (−0.06 to −0.01)
a
|
0.01 (−0.01 to 0.02) |
−0.04 (−0.06 to −0.01)
a
|
The model was adjusted for baseline age (centered at 55 years old), sex, race, education, self-reported quality of life, donor type (live or deceased), the Charlson Comorbidity Index adapted for patients with ESRD,
39,40 and recipient eGFR at the time of admission and discharge as well as immunosuppressive medication (induction and triple regimen including tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroid).
Frailty is defined by the Fried
frailty phenotype. The estimated score is for the last day for the time interval. The absolute difference is the difference in estimated scores comparing frail recipients with nonfrail recipients at the end of the period. The net effect refers to the difference in absolute value comparing each respective post-KT interval with pre-KT. KT, kidney transplant; —, not applicable for the respective analyses.
aStatistical significance at a cutoff of P=0.05.
Pre-KT Frailty and Short-Term Cognitive Trajectory 1 Year Post-KT
After accounting for nonlinear cognitive trajectories and adjusting for recipient, donor, and transplant factors, improvements in cognitive scores in the first 3 months post-KT were evident for both frail (slope =0.22 points per week; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.29) and nonfrail recipients (slope =0.14 points per week; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.21), and these rates of improvement did not differ from each other (difference =0.08 points; 95% CI, −0.10 to 0.26). By 3 months post-KT, cognitive performance levels did not differ by frailty (difference =−0.9 points; 95% CI, −3.0 to 1.2). The same was true by 6 months post-KT (difference =−1.5 points; 95% CI, −3.8 to 0.8) and 1 year post-KT (difference =0.5 points; 95% CI, −1.3 to 2.3), because both frail and nonfrail recipients remained stable through the end of the first year post-KT (difference =0.07 points per week; 95% CI, −0.03 to 0.17).
Frailty and Medium-Term Cognitive Trajectory 1–4 Years Post-KT
After accounting for nonlinear cognitive trajectories and adjusting for recipient, donor, and transplant factors, rates of cognitive change differed between frail and nonfrail participants after 1 year of follow-up post-KT (Figure 2). Specifically, frail recipients experienced steeper decline in cognitive function compared with nonfrail recipients after 1 year post-KT (difference =−0.04 points per week; 95% CI, −0.06 to −0.01) (Table 3). Among nonfrail recipients, mean cognitive trajectories remained stable after 1 year post-KT (slope =0.005 points per week; 95% CI, −0.01 to 0.02); converted to points per year, this slope equates to an average of +0.3 points per year over the course of a 3-year period from 1 to 4 years post-KT. In contrast, frail recipients had declines in mean cognitive scores after 1 year post-KT (slope =−0.03 points per week; 95% CI, −0.06 to −0.01); converted to points per year, this slope equates to an average of −1.6 points per year over the course of 3 years from 1 to 4 years post-KT. This effect of being frail is approximately equivalent in our data to being 26.0 years older at time of KT. By 4 years post-KT, frail recipients had lower cognitive scores compared with nonfrail recipients (difference =−5.5 points; 95% CI, −8.7 to −2.4) (Table 3). Age, sex, race, education, and pre-KT cognitive impairment did not modify the association between pre-KT frailty and post-KT cognitive change (P value for interactions for each time interval >0.05).
Figure 2.: Global cognitive trajectories (Modified Mini-Mental State Examination [3MS] scores) vary by
frailty status among adult kidney transplant (KT) recipients post-KT (
n=665). Adjusted trajectories were estimated for 565 nonfrail and 100 frail KT recipients ages 18+ years old using a mixed effects model with random slope (time) and intercept (person) controlling for baseline age (centered at 55 years old), sex, race, education, self-reported quality of life, donor type (live or deceased), the Charlson Comorbidity Index adapted for patients with ESRD,
39 , 40 and recipient eGFR at the time of admission and discharge as well as immunosuppressive medications (induction and triple therapy including tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroid). We accounted for nonlinearity to examine trajectories over different time periods: the first 3 months, 3–6 months, 6 months to 1 year, and 1–4 years post-KT. Baseline (time 0) represents pre-KT. Both frail and nonfrail recipients improved in cognitive function within 3 months post-KT. However, between 1 and 4 years post-KT, frail recipients experienced declines in cognitive function, whereas nonfrail KT recipients plateaued; those cognitive trajectories significantly differed. *Significantly different rates of change (points per week) comparing frail with nonfrail within the respective interval (
P<0.05).
Sensitivity Analyses
For all sensitivity analyses, inferences remained relatively consistent on the basis of the magnitude and direction of the estimates. Specifically, when we (1) addressed potential bias introduced by cognitive score ceiling effects, (2) addressed concerns related to general attrition (including loss to follow-up and loss due to competing risks, such as mortality and graft loss), or (3) accounted for dynamic frailty (as a time-varying factor), both frail and nonfrail recipients improved in cognitive function in the short term between time of admission and 1 year post-KT. Consistent with primary analyses, sensitivity analyses showed that nonfrail recipients either plateaued or even increased through the rest of the 4-year period, whereas frail recipients experienced declines in cognitive function on the basis of magnitude and direction of estimates (Supplemental Tables 1–6).
Discussion
In this cohort of KT recipients of all ages, after accounting for nonlinear trajectories, those who were frail had worse cognitive function (mean =89.0) compared with nonfrail recipients (mean =90.8) at KT admission (difference =−1.8 points; 95% CI, −3.3 to −0.3). Both frail and nonfrail recipients experienced short-term improvements in cognitive function post-KT. By 3 months post-KT, cognitive scores did not differ by frailty (difference =−0.9 points; 95% CI, −3.0 to 1.2). Although nonfrail recipients showed stable cognitive performance scores thereafter through the end of the study period, frail recipients experienced cognitive decline between 1 and 4 years post-KT (slope =−0.04 points per week; 95% CI, −0.06 to −0.01); this difference by frailty status in this study is approximately equivalent to being 26.0 years older at the time of KT. By 4 years post-KT, frail recipients had a mean cognitive score of 5.5 points lower than nonfrail recipients (95% CI, −8.7 to −2.4). This association between frailty and cognitive trajectories did not differ by age, sex, race, education, and cognitive impairment at KT admission.
Our results highlight the importance of accounting for nonlinearity when studying cognitive function among KT recipients; modeling trajectories otherwise can miss important nuances. After accounting for nonlinearity, our results are consistent with previous findings from smaller studies with shorter-term follow-up that suggest that , restoration of kidney function, recipients may experience improvements in cognitive function.9−14 Although frailty represents a vulnerability to stressors, our findings suggest that benefits that come with restoration of kidney function may outweigh negative effects of frailty in the short term post-KT.
However, between 1 and 4 years of follow-up post-KT, frail recipients experienced cognitive decline, whereas nonfrail recipients remained stable. These findings support our hypothesis that the PFP represents a distinct vulnerability to stressors.25 Although we do not fully understand the mechanisms driving this association between frailty and cognition among adult KT recipients, recent reviews of frailty and cognition in older adults suggested potential effects of inflammation, cardiovascular disease, nutrition, and neuropathology.23,24 Among KT recipients especially, consumption of immunosuppressive medications may potentially serve as a chronic stressor. As shown by prior research, frail recipients may not recover from the physiologic stress of their immunosuppressive regimens as efficiently as nonfrail recipients; in theory, their underlying multisystem dysfunction hinders their ability to reach homeostasis in the face of stressors introduced by such medications with dose-dependent adverse events, putting them at higher risk of poor KT outcomes.32 This may serve as one potential explanation linking frailty, cognitive impairment, and dementia among KT recipients; however, additional research is needed to thoroughly explore the longitudinal role of immunosuppression regimens on frailty and cognitive function among KT recipients.
This study was not without limitations. In this study, measurements were ascertained at clinical follow-up, and not all participants completed follow-up. However, the KT recipients with and without longitudinal measurements of cognitive function did not differ significantly by age, sex, race, cognitive impairment, cognitive score, frailty, or time on dialysis. Sensitivity analyses accounting for attrition confirmed robustness of our inferences; thus, effects of selection bias are likely minimal. Another limitation is the use of a single measure of cognitive function (the 3MS). As a tool that measures global cognitive function, it may be less sensitive to cognitive changes and unable to pinpoint domain-specific effects compared with comprehensive neuropsychologic batteries; however, it is an appealing instrument for a variety of evaluation settings where speed and ease of repeated assessments are needed. Although studies among adults with ESRD35 and older adults23,59 have shown positive findings for specific cognitive domains, with the strongest associations for executive function23,35,59,60—a critical domain that deteriorates with onset of vascular dementia61—additional research is needed to assess the association with specific cognitive domain for a better understanding of underlying mechanisms among KT recipients. Additionally, clinical complications post-transplant not captured in this study, such as infection, acute rejection, and metabolic derangements, may also influence cognitive function post-KT and should be investigated in subsequent analyses.
Notwithstanding these limitations, there were several strengths of this study. This study incorporates repeated measures of carefully collected data up to 4 years, with availability of both pre- and post-KT cognitive tests as well as a validated measure of frailty. Furthermore, this large, diverse, multicenter study provided the unique opportunity to examine the frailty-cognition relationship across all ages and explore differences by age, race, and sex in the face of an acute stressor (KT).
Although both frail and nonfrail recipients experienced improvements in cognitive function by 3 months post-KT, between 1 and 4 years post-KT, nonfrail recipients maintained higher levels of cognitive function, whereas frail recipients experienced cognitive decline and failed to recover to baseline levels. Clinicians may consider regularly monitoring cognitive function and mitigating cognitive decline among frail recipients as part of clinical practice for KT candidates to prevent cognitive impairment and dementia—a state of chronic and severe cognitive impairment more common among KT recipients aged 55+ years old than older adults generally.62 Among identified interventions that address cognitive decline, cognitive training remains one of the three most promising along with physical exercise and BP management,63 and its benefits may extend to cognitive tasks of activities of daily life.64−66 Additionally, transplant centers may consider targeting frailty among candidates before KT with interventions, such as exercise and resistance training, nutrition, geriatric assessment/management, and prehabilitation, to optimize recovery from surgical stressors.67 Targeting frail KT recipients for outpatient monitoring and intervention may mitigate adverse KT outcomes among a highly vulnerable population.30,32,36,37,44
Disclosures
None.
This study was supported by National Institutes of Health grants R01-AG042504 (principal investigator [PI]: D.L.S.), K24-DK101828 (PI: D.L.S.), and R01-AG055781 (PI: M.A.M.-D.). N.M.C. was supported by Epidemiology and Biostatistics of Aging Training Grant T32-AG000247 through Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. A.L.G. was supported by grant K01-AG050699 from the National Institute on Aging. A.A.S. was supported by grant F30-DK116658 from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. C.E.H. was supported by grant F32-AG053025 from the National Institute on Aging. K.B.-R. was supported by National Institute on Aging grants P30-AG021334 and P50-AG00514. M.A.M.-D. was supported by grant K01-AG043501 from the National Institute on Aging and grant R0-1DK114074 from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
Supplemental Material
This article contains the following supplemental material online at http://jasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1681/ASN.2018070726/-/DCSupplemental.
Supplemental Table 1. Adjusted estimates of global cognitive trajectories among kidney transplant (KT) recipients by baseline frailty incorporating spline terms at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years post-KT (n=665).
Supplemental Table 2. Full multivariate model output for primary analysis assessing post-KT cognitive trajectories (3MS score) by pre-KT frailty status at different time intervals post-KT.
Supplemental Table 3. Sensitivity analysis: adjusted estimates of global cognitive trajectories among kidney transplant (KT) recipients by baseline frailty status using a random effects Tobit model (n=665).
Supplemental Table 4. Sensitivity analysis: adjusted estimates of global cognitive trajectories among kidney transplant (KT) recipients by baseline frailty status accounting for attrition assuming a mortal cohort using MI-GEE (n=665).
Supplemental Table 5. Sensitivity analysis: adjusted estimates of global cognitive trajectories among kidney transplant (KT) recipients by baseline frailty status accounting for attrition assuming an immortal cohort using WGEE (n=665).
Supplemental Table 6. Sensitivity analysis: adjusted estimates of global cognitive trajectories among kidney transplant (KT) recipients by frailty status accounting for time-varying frailty (n=665).
References
1. Yaffe K, Ackerson L, Kurella Tamura M, Le Blanc P, Kusek JW, Sehgal AR, et al.; Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort Investigators: Chronic kidney disease and cognitive function in older adults: Findings from the chronic renal insufficiency cohort cognitive study. J Am Geriatr Soc 58: 338–345, 201020374407
2. Kurella Tamura M, Xie D, Yaffe K, Cohen DL, Teal V, Kasner SE, et al.: Vascular risk factors and cognitive impairment in chronic kidney disease: The Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) study. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 6: 248–256, 201120930087
3. Koushik NS, McArthur SF, Baird AD: Adult chronic kidney disease: Neurocognition in chronic renal failure. Neuropsychol Rev 20: 33–51, 201019705282
4. Buchman AS, Tanne D, Boyle PA, Shah RC, Leurgans SE, Bennett DA: Kidney function is associated with the rate of cognitive decline in the elderly. Neurology 73: 920–927, 200919657107
5. Seliger SL, Wendell CR, Waldstein SR, Ferrucci L, Zonderman AB: Renal function and long-term decline in cognitive function: The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. Am J Nephrol 41: 305–312, 201526201453
6. Gupta A, Mahnken JD, Johnson DK, Thomas TS, Subramaniam D, Polshak T, et al.: Prevalence and correlates of cognitive impairment in kidney transplant recipients. BMC Nephrol 18: 158, 201728499360
7. Jindal RM, Joseph JT, Morris MC, Santella RN, Baines LS: Noncompliance after
kidney transplantation: A systematic review. Transplant Proc 35: 2868–2872, 200314697924
8. Hucker A, Bunn F, Carpenter L, Lawrence C, Farrington K, Sharma S: Non-adherence to immunosuppressants following renal transplantation: A protocol for a systematic review. BMJ Open 7: e015411, 201728963283
9. Joshee P, Wood AG, Wood ER, Grunfeld EA: Meta-analysis of cognitive functioning in patients following
kidney transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 33: 1268–1277, 201728992229
10. Dixon BS, VanBuren JM, Rodrigue JR, Lockridge RS, Lindsay R, Chan C, et al.; FHN Study: Cognitive changes associated with switching to frequent nocturnal hemodialysis or renal transplantation. BMC Nephrol 17: 12, 201626801094
11. Griva K, Thompson D, Jayasena D, Davenport A, Harrison M, Newman SP: Cognitive functioning pre- to post-
kidney transplantation--a prospective study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 21: 3275–3282, 200616861731
12. Radić J, Ljutić D, Radić M, Kovačić V, Dodig-Ćurković K, Šain M:
Kidney transplantation improves cognitive and psychomotor functions in adult hemodialysis patients. Am J Nephrol 34: 399–406, 201121934300
13. Kramer L, Madl C, Stockenhuber F, Yeganehfar W, Eisenhuber E, Derfler K, et al.: Beneficial effect of renal transplantation on cognitive brain function. Kidney Int 49: 833–838, 19968648927
14. Harciarek M, Biedunkiewicz B, Lichodziejewska-Niemierko M, Dębska-Ślizień A, Rutkowski B: Continuous cognitive improvement 1 year following successful kidney transplant. Kidney Int 79: 1353–1360, 201121389973
15. McAdams-DeMarco MA, James N, Salter ML, Walston J, Segev DL: Trends in kidney transplant outcomes in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 62: 2235–2242, 201425439325
16. Zaninotto P, Batty GD, Allerhand M, Deary IJ: Cognitive function trajectories and their determinants in older people: 8 Years of follow-up in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. J Epidemiol Community Health 72: 685–694, 201829691286
17. Wilson RS, Beckett LA, Barnes LL, Schneider JA, Bach J, Evans DA, et al.: Individual differences in rates of change in cognitive abilities of older persons. Psychol Aging 17: 179–193, 200212061405
18. Hedden T, Gabrieli JD: Insights into the ageing mind: A view from cognitive neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci 5: 87–96, 200414735112
19. Park HL, O’Connell JE, Thomson RG: A systematic review of cognitive decline in the general elderly population. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 18: 1121–1134, 200314677145
20. Fried LP, Ferrucci L, Darer J, Williamson JD, Anderson G: Untangling the concepts of disability,
frailty, and comorbidity: Implications for improved targeting and care. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 59: 255–263, 200415031310
21. Bandeen-Roche K, Seplaki CL, Huang J, Buta B, Kalyani RR, Varadhan R, et al.:
Frailty in older adults: A nationally representative profile in the United States. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 70: 1427–1434, 201526297656
22. Heuberger RA: The
frailty syndrome: A comprehensive review. J Nutr Gerontol Geriatr 30: 315–368, 201122098178
23. Robertson DA, Savva GM, Kenny RA:
Frailty and cognitive impairment--a review of the evidence and causal mechanisms. Ageing Res Rev 12: 840–851, 201323831959
24. Canevelli M, Cesari M, van Kan GA:
Frailty and cognitive decline: How do they relate? Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 18: 43–50, 201525405314
25. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, et al.; Cardiovascular Health Study Collaborative Research Group:
Frailty in older adults: Evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 56: M146–M156, 200111253156
26. Morley JE, Vellas B, van Kan GA, Anker SD, Bauer JM, Bernabei R, et al.:
Frailty consensus: A call to action. J Am Med Dir Assoc 14: 392–397, 201323764209
27. Bandeen-Roche K, Xue QL, Ferrucci L, Walston J, Guralnik JM, Chaves P, et al.: Phenotype of
frailty: Characterization in the women’s health and aging studies. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 61: 262–266, 200616567375
28. Buta BJ, Walston JD, Godino JG, Park M, Kalyani RR, Xue QL, et al.:
Frailty assessment instruments: Systematic characterization of the uses and contexts of highly-cited instruments. Ageing Res Rev 26: 53–61, 201626674984
29. Garonzik-Wang JM, Govindan P, Grinnan JW, Liu M, Ali HM, Chakraborty A, et al.:
Frailty and delayed graft function in kidney transplant recipients. Arch Surg 147: 190–193, 201222351919
30. McAdams-DeMarco MA, Law A, Salter ML, Chow E, Grams M, Walston J, et al.:
Frailty and early hospital readmission after
kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 13: 2091–2095, 201323731461
31. McAdams-DeMarco MA, Law A, Salter ML, Boyarsky B, Gimenez L, Jaar BG, et al.:
Frailty as a novel predictor of mortality and hospitalization in individuals of all ages undergoing hemodialysis. J Am Geriatr Soc 61: 896–901, 201323711111
32. McAdams-DeMarco MA, Law A, Tan J, Delp C, King EA, Orandi B, et al.:
Frailty, mycophenolate reduction, and graft loss in kidney transplant recipients. Transplantation 99: 805–810, 201525393156
33. McAdams-DeMarco MA, Suresh S, Law A, Salter ML, Gimenez LF, Jaar BG, et al.:
Frailty and falls among adult patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis: A prospective cohort study. BMC Nephrol 14: 224, 201324131569
34. McAdams-DeMarco MA, Ying H, Olorundare I, King EA, Haugen C, Buta B, et al.: Individual
frailty components and mortality in kidney transplant recipients. Transplantation 101: 2126–2132, 201627779573
35. McAdams-DeMarco MA, Tan J, Salter ML, Gross A, Meoni LA, Jaar BG, et al.:
Frailty and cognitive function in incident hemodialysis patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 10: 2181–2189, 201526573615
36. McAdams-DeMarco MA, Law A, King E, Orandi B, Salter M, Gupta N, et al.:
Frailty and mortality in kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 15: 149–154, 201525359393
37. McAdams-DeMarco MA, Olorundare IO, Ying H, et al.:
Frailty and postkidney transplant health-related quality of life. Transplantation 102: 291–299, 201828885489
38. Haugen CE, Mountford A, Warsame F, Berkowitz R, Bae S, Thomas AG, et al.: Incidence, risk factors, and sequelae of post-kidney transplant delirium. J Am Soc Nephrol 29: 1752–1759, 201829685884
39. Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J: Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol 47: 1245–1251, 19947722560
40. Hemmelgarn BR, Manns BJ, Quan H, Ghali WA: Adapting the Charlson Comorbidity Index for use in patients with ESRD. Am J Kidney Dis 42: 125–132, 200312830464
41. Nastasi AJ, McAdams-DeMarco MA, Schrack J, Ying H, Olorundare I, Warsame F, et al.: Pre-kidney transplant lower extremity impairment and post-kidney transplant mortality. Am J Transplant 18: 189–196, 201828710900
42. Radloff LS: The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas 1: 385–401, 1977
43. McAdams-DeMarco MA, Isaacs K, Darko L, Salter ML, Gupta N, King EA, et al.: Changes in
frailty after
kidney transplantation. J Am Geriatr Soc 63: 2152–2157, 201526416770
44. McAdams-DeMarco MA, King EA, Luo X, Haugen C, DiBrito S, Shaffer A, et al.:
Frailty, length of stay, and mortality in kidney transplant recipients: A national registry and prospective cohort study. Ann Surg 266: 1084–1090, 201727655240
45. Teng EL, Chui HC: The modified Mini-Mental State (3MS) examination. J Clin Psychiatry 48: 314–318, 19873611032
46. McDowell I, Kristjansson B, Hill GB, Hébert R: Community screening for dementia: The mini mental state exam (MMSE) and modified mini-mental state exam (3MS) compared. J Clin Epidemiol 50: 377–383, 19979179095
47. Kurella M, Chertow GM, Luan J, Yaffe K: Cognitive impairment in chronic kidney disease. J Am Geriatr Soc 52: 1863–1869, 200415507063
48. Tombaugh TN: Test-retest reliable coefficients and 5-year change scores for the MMSE and 3MS. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 20: 485–503, 200515896562
49. Kurella M, Chertow GM, Fried LF, Cummings SR, Harris T, Simonsick E, et al.: Chronic kidney disease and cognitive impairment in the elderly: The health, aging, and body composition study. J Am Soc Nephrol 16: 2127–2133, 200515888561
50. Ebly EM, Hogan DB, Parhad IM: Cognitive impairment in the nondemented elderly. Results from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging. Arch Neurol 52: 612–619, 19957763211
51. Glymour MM, Weuve J, Berkman LF, Kawachi I, Robins JM: When is baseline adjustment useful in analyses of change? An example with education and cognitive change. Am J Epidemiol 162: 267–278, 200515987729
52. Tobin J: Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica 26: 24–36, 1958
53. Rubin DB: Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys, Vol. 81, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2004
54. Robins JM, Rotnitzky A, Zhao LP: Analysis of semiparametric regression models for repeated outcomes in the presence of missing data. J Am Stat Assoc 90: 106–121, 1995
55. Schafer JL: Multiple imputation in multivariate problems when the imputation and analysis models differ. Stat Neerl 57: 19–35, 2003
56. Aloisio KM, Swanson SA, Micali N, Field A, Horton NJ: Analysis of partially observed clustered data using generalized estimating equations and multiple imputation. Stata J 14: 863–883, 201425642154
57. Birhanu T, Molenberghs G, Sotto C, Kenward MG: Doubly robust and multiple-imputation-based generalized estimating equations. J Biopharm Stat 21: 202–225, 201121390997
58. Beunckens C, Sotto C, Molenberghs G: A simulation study comparing weighted estimating equations with multiple imputation based estimating equations for longitudinal binary data. Comput Stat Data Anal 52: 1533–1548, 2008
59. Brigola AG, Rossetti ES, Dos Santos BR, Neri AL, Zazzetta MS, Inouye K, et al.: Relationship between
cognition and
frailty in elderly: A systematic review. Dement Neuropsychol 9: 110–119, 201529213952
60. Gross AL, Xue QL, Bandeen-Roche K, Fried LP, Varadhan R, McAdams-DeMarco MA, et al.: Declines and impairment in executive function predict onset of physical
frailty. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 71: 1624–1630, 201627084314
61. Desmond DW: The neuropsychology of vascular cognitive impairment: Is there a specific cognitive deficit? J Neurol Sci 226: 3–7, 200415537510
62. McAdams-DeMarco MA, Bae S, Chu N, Gross AL, Brown CH IV, Oh E, et al.: Dementia and Alzheimer’s disease among older kidney transplant recipients. J Am Soc Nephrol 28: 1575–1583, 201627979990
63. Jones RN: Cognitive training improves cognitive performance, but what else? J Am Geriatr Soc 66: 648–649, 201829313880
64. Belleville S, Hudon C, Bier N, Brodeur C, Gilbert B, Grenier S, et al.: MEMO+: Efficacy, durability and effect of cognitive training and psychosocial intervention in individuals with mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 66: 655–663, 201829313875
65. Rebok GW, Ball K, Guey LT, et al.: Ten-year effects of the ACTIVE cognitive training trial on
cognition and everyday functioning in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 62: 16–24, 201424417410
66. McAdams-DeMarco MA, Konel J, Warsame F, Ying H, González Fernández M, Carlson MC, et al.: Intradialytic cognitive and exercise training may preserve cognitive function. Kidney Int Rep 3: 81–88, 201729340317
67. Puts MTE, Toubasi S, Andrew MK, Ashe MC, Ploeg J, Atkinson E, et al.: Interventions to prevent or reduce the level of
frailty in community-dwelling older adults: A scoping review of the literature and international policies. Age Ageing 46: 383–392, 201728064173
