| Literature DB >> 26949420 |
Hans Drenth1, Sytse Zuidema2, Steven Bunt3, Ivan Bautmans4, Cees van der Schans3, Hans Hobbelen3.
Abstract
Diminishing motor function is commonly observed in the elderly population and is associated with a wide range of adverse health consequences. Advanced Glycation End products (AGE's) may contribute to age-related decline in the function of cells and tissues in normal ageing. Although the negative effect of AGE's on the biomechanical properties of musculoskeletal tissues and the central nervous system have been previously described, the evidence regarding the effect on motor function is fragmented, and a systematic review on this topic is lacking. Therefore, a systematic review was conducted from a total of eight studies describing AGE's related to physical functioning, physical performance, and musculoskeletal outcome which reveals a positive association between high AGE's levels and declined walking abilities, inferior ADL, decreased muscle properties (strength, power and mass) and increased physical frailty. Elevated AGE's levels might be an indication to initiate (early) treatment such as dietary advice, muscle strengthening exercises, and functional training to maintain physical functions. Further longitudinal observational and controlled trial studies are necessary to investigate a causal relationship, and to what extent, high AGE's levels are a contributing risk factor and potential biomarker for a decline in motor function as a component of the ageing process.Entities:
Keywords: Advanced Glycation End products; Ageing; Biomarker; Motor function; Systematic review
Year: 2016 PMID: 26949420 PMCID: PMC4779236 DOI: 10.1186/s11556-016-0163-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Rev Aging Phys Act ISSN: 1813-7253 Impact factor: 3.878
Detailed search terms
| Entry | Keywords |
|---|---|
| AGE’s | “advanced glycosylation end products” (OR) “advanced glycosylation end products receptor (supplementary concept)” (OR) “advanced glycation end product(s)” (OR) “advanced glycation end product(s) receptor” (OR) “non-enzymatic glycation” (OR)“ non-enzymatic glycosylation” (OR) “glycotoxins”. |
| AND | |
| Motor function | “musculoskeletal physiological phenomena” (OR) ”muscle fatigue” (OR) “muscle strength” (OR) “muscle rigidity” (OR) “muscle tonus” (OR) “muscle stiffness” (OR) “mechanical stiffness” (OR) “rigidity” (OR) “ physical endurance” (OR) “postural balance” (OR) “balance” (OR) “posture” (OR) “postural control” (OR) “articular range of motion” (OR) “psychomotor performance” (OR) “motor activity” (OR) “motor skills” (OR) “motor skills disorders” (OR) “coordination” (OR) “motor coordination” (OR) “motor control” (OR) “eye-hand coordination” (OR) “fine motor” (OR) “fine motor skills” (OR) “neuromuscular manifestations” (OR) “gait” (OR)“gait disorders” (OR) “walking” (OR) “locomotion” (OR) “falls (accidental)” (OR) “mobility limitation” (OR) “physical mobility” (OR) “physical performance” (OR) “physical activity” (OR) “activities of daily living” (OR) ”motor function” (OR) “motor function decline” (OR) “mobility impairment” (OR) “functional decline” (OR) “motor inhibition” (OR) “inhibition of action” (OR) “interlimb” (OR) “interlimb coordination”. |
Methodological quality of observation studies with EBRO assessment tool of cohort studies [38]
| Item | Semba et al. 2010 [ | Sun et al. 2012 [ | Whitson et al. 2014 [ | Shah et al. 2015 [ | Dalal et al. 2009 [ | De La Maza et al. 2008 [ | Momma et al. 2011 [ | Tanaka et al. 2015 [ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Are the comparing groups clearly described? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 2. Can risk of bias sufficiently be excluded? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| 3. Is the exposure clearly described and is the method for assessing the exposure adequate? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 4. Is outcome clearly described and is the method for assessing the outcome adequate? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 5. Has exposure outcome been blinded? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 6. Is there sufficient long follow-up? | Not Applicable | Yes | Yes | Not Applicable | Not Applicable | Not Applicable | Not Applicable | Not Applicable |
| 7. Can selective loss-to-follow-up sufficiently be excluded? | Not Applicable | Yes | Yes | Not Applicable | Not Applicable | Not Applicable | Not Applicable | Not Applicable |
| 8. Have important confounders or prognostic factors been identified and are they taken into account in the design or analysis? | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
| 9. Are the study results valid and applicable? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 10. Correction for potential confounders: Odds ratio (OR), Relative Risk (RR), Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR), Mean Difference (MD), Hazard Ratio (HR) | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
| Overall quality score | Good | Good | Good | Moderate | Good | Moderate | Good | Good |
To be eligible for further statistical analysis, the study results should rate “valid and applicable” or “doubtful” on question 9. To qualify “valid and applicable” a longitudinal study had to score “Yes” on the 2 follow up questions (6 and 7) and more than 4 times a “yes” on the remaining validity items (1 t/m5 and 8). A “doubtful” qualification was given when 4 times a “yes” was scored on the remaining validity items (1 t/m5 and 8). When a study scored “yes” less than 4 times on the remaining items, further analysis with the checklist was cancelled. When the study had a cross-sectional design the two questions regarding follow up (6 and 7) were disregarded
Fig. 1Flow Chart of selection process
Study characteristics
| First author/year of publication | Design | Population | AGE/RAGE Circulating/Tissue levels, Tissue type | Musculoskeletal outcome | Physical performance and functioning outcome | Main findings and Outcome statistics: |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Semba et al. 2010 [ | Cross-sectional | Community dwelling older adults | Circulating plasma CML (cut-off value for high level = 424 ng/mL) | - | Walking speed (cut-off value for slow walking <0.79 m/s) | Risk for slow walking speed with high AGE’s level: OR = 1.60 (95 % CI:1.02–2.52)*c
|
| Sun et al. 2012 [ | Longitudinal observational study with 30 month follow-up | Moderately to severe disabled community dwelling F, | Circulating serum CML (cut-off value for high level = 689.1 ng/mL) | - | Walking disability (inability or slow speed) (cut-off value for slow walking <0.4 m/s) | Walking disability risk with high AGE’s level: HR = 1.68 (95 % CI: 1.11–2.52)* |
| Whitson et al., 2014 [ | Longitudinal observational study with 14 year follow-up for ADL disability. | Community dwelling older adults | Circulating serum CML (cut-off value for high level = 620 ng/mL) | ADL disability | ADL disability risk with high AGE’s level: | |
| Shah et al. 2015 [ | Cross-sectional | DM2 patients | AGE-type not defined (skin tissue auto fluorescent Crosslinking AGE’s) | Shoulder flexor strength | 1. Upper extremity disability | Correlation flexor strength and AGE’s level: |
| Dalal et al. 2009 [ | Cross- sectional | Moderately to severe disabled community dwelling F, | Circulating serum | Handgrip strength | - | Group difference high vs. low AGE’s level: 18.2 (6.4) kg. vs. 20.1 (6.2) kg., |
| De La Maza et al. 2008 | Cross-sectional | Healthy M, | Skeletal muscle tissue CML/RAGE | Handgrip strength | - | Correlation grip strength and AGE’s level: |
| Momma et al. 2011 [ | Cross-sectional | Healthy M, aged 46 years (37–56)a
| AGE-type not defined (skin tissue auto fluorescent Crosslinking AGE’s) (cut-off value for high level = 2.09–4.44 AF) | 1. Handgrip strength | - | Group difference high vs low AGE’s level: |
| Tanaka et al. 2015 | Cross-sectional | DM2 patients, F, | Circulating serum Pentosidine | 1. Upper extremity muscle mass | Association UMM and AGE’s level: R = −0.11 NS | |
M Male, F Female, yrs years, AGE Advanced Glycation End product, RAGE Receptor for Advanced Glycation End products, CML Carboxy-methyl-Lysine, DM2 Diabetes Mellitus type 2
aMedian (interquartile range), ES Effect Size, OR Odds Ratio, HR Hazard Risk
bmultivariate adjusted for demographics
cidem + multivariate adjusted for potential confounders. NS Not significant. (1) All women with missing data had multiple simulations to impute walking disability status prior to death. (2) Inverse probability weighting method. (3) All women with missing data treated as developing walking disability prior to death. (4) All women with missing data treated as censored, that is, no walking disability prior to death, UMM Upper extremity Muscle Mass, LMM Lower extremity Muscle Mass, RSMI Relative Skeletal Muscle Mass Index
* P < 0,05