Assessment of an embedded primary care-derived electronic health record (EHR) frailty index (eFI) in older adults with acute myeloid leukemia.

INTRODUCTION:Assessing frailty is integral to treatment decision-making for older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Prior electronic frailty indices (eFI) derive from an accumulated-deficit model and are associated with mortality in older primary care populations. We evaluated use of an embedded eFI in AML by describing baseline eFI categories by treatment type and exploring associations between eFI categories, survival, and treatment received. MATERIALS AND METHODS:This was a retrospective study of subjects ≥60 years old with new AML treated at an academic medical center from 1/2018-10/2020. The eFI requires ≥2 ambulatory visits over two years and uses demographics, vitals, ICD-10 codes, outpatient labs, and available functional information from Medicare Annual Wellness Visits. Frailty was defined as fit (eFI ≤ 0.10), pre-frail (0.10 < eFI ≤ 0.21), and frail (eFI > 0.21). Chemotherapy was intensive (anthracycline-based) or less-intensive (hypomethylating agent, low dose cytarabine +/- venetoclax). Therapy type, pre-treatment characteristics, and chemotherapy cycles were compared by eFI category using chi-square and Fisher's exact tests and ANOVA. Median survival was compared by eFI category using log-rank tests stratified by therapy type. RESULTS:Among 166 older adults treated for AML (mean age 74 years, 61% male, 85% Caucasian), only 79 (48%) had a calculable eFI score before treatment. Of these, baseline eFI category was associated with treatment received (fit (n = 31): 68% intensive, 32% less intensive; pre-frail (n = 38): 37% intensive, 63% less intensive; frail (n = 10): 0% intensive, 100% less intensive; not calculable (n = 87): 48% intensive, 52% less-intensive; p < 0.01). The prevalence of congestive heart failure and secondary AML differed by frailty status (p < 0.01). Median survival did not differ between eFI categories for intensively (p = 0.48) or less-intensively (p = 0.09) treated patients. For those with less-intensive therapy who lived ≥6 months, eFI category was not associated with the number of chemotherapy cycles received (p = 0.97). The main reason for an incalculable eFI was a lack of outpatient visits in our health system prior to AML diagnosis. DISCUSSION:A primary care-derived eFI was incalculable for half of older adults with AML at an academic medical center. Frailty was associated with chemotherapy intensity but not survival or treatment duration. Next steps include testing adaptations of the eFI to the AML setting.