Assessing Biological Age for Predicting Cardiovascular Risks

Recent research indicates that understanding biological age--how well a person's body is functioning relative to their chronological age--can provide a more accurate assessment of the risk for cardiovascular diseases compared to standard evaluation methods. This research, a collaboration among the Universities of Jyväskylä, Tampere, and Helsinki, as well as the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare and the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden, sheds light on the implications of biological aging on cardiovascular health.

Biological aging encompasses the gradual decline of cellular and tissue function throughout a person's life, beginning in early adulthood. This process can lead to increased vulnerability to diseases and a higher mortality risk. The rate of biological aging differs among individuals, influenced by genetic, lifestyle, and environmental factors.

In their study, researchers assessed biological aging through two key indicators: a frailty index, which measures the accumulation of health deficits across various bodily systems, and telomere length, a cellular marker linked to aging. Traditional cardiovascular risk assessment tools, such as the SCORE2, SCORE2-OP, and Framingham risk score, primarily consider chronological age, sex, and certain health or lifestyle factors without accounting for biological age.

The findings, published in the journal Age and Ageing, suggest that the frailty index is a useful predictor of cardiovascular disease risk. The study analyzed data from over 14,000 individuals from Finland and Sweden who had no prior history of cardiovascular disease, revealing that the frailty index can accurately forecast cardiovascular risk not only in older populations (70 years and above) but also in younger individuals (under 70 years).

Furthermore, the frailty index proved to be a reliable measure for estimating the likelihood of developing cardiovascular disease within a ten-year period. In contrast, the correlation between telomere length and cardiovascular risk was found to be less pronounced.

The researchers noted that this study is among the first to utilize the frailty index in conjunction with the SCORE2 and SCORE2-OP risk scores to evaluate cardiovascular disease risk. Previous research had only explored the frailty index alongside the Framingham risk score, and the new findings align with those earlier results.

The study authors advocate for the inclusion of biological age in cardiovascular risk assessment tools. They suggest that a frailty index reflecting the cumulative impact of age-related health deficits could serve as an effective indicator of overall health and well-being. Moreover, it can be easily measured through straightforward questionnaires, making it accessible for broader clinical use.

This innovative approach could lead to more personalized and effective strategies for preventing and managing cardiovascular diseases, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes.