Why the study?
Despite evidence on allostatic load as a model explaining associations between stress and disease, there is no consensus on its operationalization.
Do different operationalizations of allostatic load predict incident disease and disability in Puerto Rican adults?
Do different operationalizations of allostatic load predict incident disease and disability in Puerto Rican adults?
Allostatic load scores computed with clinical-based cutoffs, particularly a 12-item selected score, robustly predict incident cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and physical impairment in mainland Puerto Ricans.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Clinical-cutoff AL scores robustly predict disease and disability in Puerto Ricans; leaves open optimal AL operationalization pending broader validation.
OBJECTIVE: Despite evidence on allostatic load (AL) as a model explaining associations between stress and disease, there is no consensus on its operationalization. This study aimed to contrast various AL constructs and their longitudinal associations with disease and disability. METHODS: Baseline and 5-year follow-up data from 738 adults participating in the Boston Puerto Rican Health Study were used. Five AL scores were created by summing the presence of 21 dysregulated multisystem physiological parameters using the following: a) z scores, b) population-based quartile cutoffs, c) clinical-based cutoffs, d) 10 preselected clinical-based cutoffs (AL-reduced), and e) 12 clinical-based cutoffs selected a posteriori based on association with disease (AL-select). Adjusted logistic regression models examined associations between each AL score at baseline and 5-year incident type 2 diabetes (T2D), cardiovascular disease (CVD), activities (or instrumental activities) of daily living (ADL; IADL) for physical impairment, and cognitive impairment. RESULTS: AL-quartile was associated with greater odds of T2D (odds ratio [OR] = 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07-1.35) and CVD (OR = 1.14; 95% CI = 1.06-1.22). AL-reduced was associated with higher odds of IADL (OR = 1.21; 95% CI = 1.07-1.37) and AL-clinical with CVD (OR = 1.14; 95% CI = 1.07-1.21), IADL (OR = 1.11; 95% CI = 1.04-1.19), and ADL (OR = 1.15; 95% CI = 1.04-1.26). AL-select showed associations with T2D (OR = 1.35; 95% CI = 1.14-1.61), CVD (OR = 1.21; 95% CI = 1.11-1.32), IADL (OR = 1.15; 95% CI = 1.04-1.26), and ADL (OR = 1.24; 95% CI = 1.08-1.41). No associations were found with AL z-score. CONCLUSIONS: AL scores computed with clinical-based cutoffs performed robustly in our sample of mainland Puerto Ricans, whereas z scores did not predict disease and disability. AL-select was the most consistent predictor, supporting its use as a disease-predicting model. Future assessment of AL-select in other populations may help operationalize AL.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
López‐Cepero et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: