SUMMARY: Currently used diagnostic measures for sarcopenia utilize different measures of muscle mass, muscle strength, and physical performance. These diagnostic measures associate differently to bone mineral density (BMD), as an example of muscle-related clinical outcome. These differences should be taken into account when studying sarcopenia. INTRODUCTION: Diagnostic measures for sarcopenia utilize different measures of muscle mass, muscle strength, and physical performance. To understand differences between these measures, we determined the association with respect to whole body BMD, as an example of muscle-related clinical outcome. METHODS: In the European cross-sectional study MYOAGE, 178 young (18-30 years) and 274 healthy old participants (69-81 years) were recruited. Body composition and BMD were evaluated using dual-energy X-ray densitometry. Diagnostic measures for sarcopenia were composed of lean mass as percentage of body mass, appendicular lean mass (ALM) as percentage of body mass, ALM divided by height squared (ALM/height(2)), knee extension torque, grip strength, walking speed, and Timed Up and Go test (TUG). Linear regression models were stratified for sex and age and adjusted for age and country, and body composition in separate models. RESULTS: Lean mass and ALM/height(2) were positively associated with BMD (P < 0.001). Significance remained in all sex and age subgroups after further adjustment for fat mass, except in old women. Lean mass percentage and ALM percentage were inversely associated with BMD in old women (P < 0.001). These inverse associations disappeared after adjustment for body mass. Knee extension torque and handgrip strength were positively associated with BMD in all subgroups (P < 0.01), except in old women. Walking speed and TUG were not related to BMD. CONCLUSIONS: The associations between diagnostic measures of sarcopenia and BMD as an example of muscle-related outcome vary widely. Differences between diagnostic measures should be taken into account when studying sarcopenia.
SUMMARY: Currently used diagnostic measures for sarcopenia utilize different measures of muscle mass, muscle strength, and physical performance. These diagnostic measures associate differently to bone mineral density (BMD), as an example of muscle-related clinical outcome. These differences should be taken into account when studying sarcopenia. INTRODUCTION: Diagnostic measures for sarcopenia utilize different measures of muscle mass, muscle strength, and physical performance. To understand differences between these measures, we determined the association with respect to whole body BMD, as an example of muscle-related clinical outcome. METHODS: In the European cross-sectional study MYOAGE, 178 young (18-30 years) and 274 healthy old participants (69-81 years) were recruited. Body composition and BMD were evaluated using dual-energy X-ray densitometry. Diagnostic measures for sarcopenia were composed of lean mass as percentage of body mass, appendicular lean mass (ALM) as percentage of body mass, ALM divided by height squared (ALM/height(2)), knee extension torque, grip strength, walking speed, and Timed Up and Go test (TUG). Linear regression models were stratified for sex and age and adjusted for age and country, and body composition in separate models. RESULTS: Lean mass and ALM/height(2) were positively associated with BMD (P < 0.001). Significance remained in all sex and age subgroups after further adjustment for fat mass, except in old women. Lean mass percentage and ALM percentage were inversely associated with BMD in old women (P < 0.001). These inverse associations disappeared after adjustment for body mass. Knee extension torque and handgrip strength were positively associated with BMD in all subgroups (P < 0.01), except in old women. Walking speed and TUG were not related to BMD. CONCLUSIONS: The associations between diagnostic measures of sarcopenia and BMD as an example of muscle-related outcome vary widely. Differences between diagnostic measures should be taken into account when studying sarcopenia.
Authors: R N Baumgartner; K M Koehler; D Gallagher; L Romero; S B Heymsfield; R R Ross; P J Garry; R D Lindeman Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1998-04-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Didier Chalhoub; Peggy M Cawthon; Kristine E Ensrud; Marcia L Stefanick; Deborah M Kado; Robert Boudreau; Susan Greenspan; Anne B Newman; Joseph Zmuda; Eric S Orwoll; Jane A Cauley Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Didier Chalhoub; Robert Boudreau; Susan Greenspan; Anne B Newman; Joseph Zmuda; Andrew W Frank-Wilson; Nayana Nagaraj; Andrew R Hoffman; Nancy E Lane; Marcia L Stefanick; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Tien Dam; Peggy M Cawthon; Eric S Orwoll; Jane A Cauley Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Jeanine M Van Ancum; Kira Scheerman; Vincent D Pierik; Siger T Numans; Sjors Verlaan; Hanne E Smeenk; Monique Slee-Valentijn; Roeliene C Kruizinga; Carel G M Meskers; Andrea B Maier Journal: Gerontology Date: 2017-08-18 Impact factor: 5.140
Authors: Romee van Dam; Jeanine M Van Ancum; Sjors Verlaan; Kira Scheerman; Carel G M Meskers; Andrea B Maier Journal: Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 2.959
Authors: Esmee M Reijnierse; Marijke C Trappenburg; Morena J Leter; Gerard Jan Blauw; Marian A E de van der Schueren; Carel G M Meskers; Andrea B Maier Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jamie S McPhee; David P French; Dean Jackson; James Nazroo; Neil Pendleton; Hans Degens Journal: Biogerontology Date: 2016-03-02 Impact factor: 4.277