W Kemmler1, M Teschler2, A Weißenfels2, C Sieber3, E Freiberger3, S von Stengel2. 1. Institute of Medical Physics (IMP), Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Henkestrasse 91, 91052, Erlangen, Germany. wolfgang.kemmler@imp.uni-erlangen.de. 2. Institute of Medical Physics (IMP), Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Henkestrasse 91, 91052, Erlangen, Germany. 3. Institute of Biomedicine of Aging (IBA), Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Kobergerstrasse 60, 90408, Nürnberg, Germany.
Abstract
The relevance of sarcopenia and sarcopenic Obesity (SO) is rising in our aging societies. Applying recognized definitions to 965 community-dwelling Bavarian men 70 years+ resulted in a prevalence for sarcopenia between 3.7 and 4.9 and between 2.1 and 4.1% for SO. Despite this high consistency, the overlap between the definitions/approaches was <50%. INTRODUCTION: The relevance of sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity (SO) is rising steadily in the aging societies of most developed nations. However, different definitions, components, and cutoff points hinder the evaluation of the prevalence of sarcopenia and SO. The purpose of this contribution was to determine the prevalence of sarcopenia and SO in a cohort of community-dwelling German men 70+ applying established sarcopenia (European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People, Foundation National Institute of Health, International Working Group on Sarcopenia) and obesity definitions. Further, we addressed the overlap between the definitions. METHODS: Altogether, 965 community-dwelling men 70 years and older living in Northern Bavaria, Germany, were assessed during the screening phase of the Franconian Sarcopenic Obesity project. Segmental multi-frequency bio-impedance analysis (BIA) was applied to determine weight and body composition. RESULTS: Applying the definitions of EWGSOP, IWGS, and FNIH, 4.9, 3.8, and 3.7% of the total cohort were classified as sarcopenic, respectively. When further applying body fat to diagnose obesity, SO prevalence in the total cohort ranged from 4.1% (EWGSOP + body fat >25%) to 2.1% (IWGS + body fat >30%). Despite the apparently high consistency of the approaches with respect to prevalence, the overlap in individual sarcopenia diagnosis between the sarcopenia definitions was rather low (<50%). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of sarcopenia and SO in community-dwelling German men 70 years+ is relatively low (<5%) independently of the definition used. However, consistency of individual sarcopenia diagnosis varies considerably between the three definitions. Since sarcopenia is now recognized as an independent condition by the International Classification of Diseases, a mandatory definition must be stated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT2857660.
The relevance of sarcopenia and sarcopenic Obesity (SO) is rising in our aging societies. Applying recognized definitions to 965 community-dwelling Bavarian men 70 years+ resulted in a prevalence for sarcopenia between 3.7 and 4.9 and between 2.1 and 4.1% for SO. Despite this high consistency, the overlap between the definitions/approaches was <50%. INTRODUCTION: The relevance of sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity (SO) is rising steadily in the aging societies of most developed nations. However, different definitions, components, and cutoff points hinder the evaluation of the prevalence of sarcopenia and SO. The purpose of this contribution was to determine the prevalence of sarcopenia and SO in a cohort of community-dwelling German men 70+ applying established sarcopenia (European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People, Foundation National Institute of Health, International Working Group on Sarcopenia) and obesity definitions. Further, we addressed the overlap between the definitions. METHODS: Altogether, 965 community-dwelling men 70 years and older living in Northern Bavaria, Germany, were assessed during the screening phase of the Franconian Sarcopenic Obesity project. Segmental multi-frequency bio-impedance analysis (BIA) was applied to determine weight and body composition. RESULTS: Applying the definitions of EWGSOP, IWGS, and FNIH, 4.9, 3.8, and 3.7% of the total cohort were classified as sarcopenic, respectively. When further applying body fat to diagnose obesity, SO prevalence in the total cohort ranged from 4.1% (EWGSOP + body fat >25%) to 2.1% (IWGS + body fat >30%). Despite the apparently high consistency of the approaches with respect to prevalence, the overlap in individual sarcopenia diagnosis between the sarcopenia definitions was rather low (<50%). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of sarcopenia and SO in community-dwelling German men 70 years+ is relatively low (<5%) independently of the definition used. However, consistency of individual sarcopenia diagnosis varies considerably between the three definitions. Since sarcopenia is now recognized as an independent condition by the International Classification of Diseases, a mandatory definition must be stated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT2857660.
Authors: A Y Bijlsma; C G M Meskers; N van den Eshof; R G Westendorp; S Sipilä; L Stenroth; E Sillanpää; J S McPhee; D A Jones; M V Narici; H Gapeyeva; M Pääsuke; T Voit; Y Barnouin; J Y Hogrel; G Butler-Browne; A B Maier Journal: Age (Dordr) Date: 2013-07-02
Authors: Alfonso J Cruz-Jentoft; Francesco Landi; Eva Topinková; Jean-Pierre Michel Journal: Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.294
Authors: L P Fried; C M Tangen; J Walston; A B Newman; C Hirsch; J Gottdiener; T Seeman; R Tracy; W J Kop; G Burke; M A McBurnie Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: C Beaudart; J Y Reginster; J Slomian; F Buckinx; N Dardenne; A Quabron; C Slangen; S Gillain; J Petermans; O Bruyère Journal: Exp Gerontol Date: 2014-11-20 Impact factor: 4.032
Authors: Sari Stenholm; Tamara B Harris; Taina Rantanen; Marjolein Visser; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Luigi Ferrucci Journal: Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 4.294
Authors: G Abellan van Kan; Y Rolland; S Andrieu; J Bauer; O Beauchet; M Bonnefoy; M Cesari; L M Donini; S Gillette Guyonnet; M Inzitari; F Nourhashemi; G Onder; P Ritz; A Salva; M Visser; B Vellas Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Dawn E Alley; Michelle D Shardell; Katherine W Peters; Robert R McLean; Thuy-Tien L Dam; Anne M Kenny; Maren S Fragala; Tamara B Harris; Douglas P Kiel; Jack M Guralnik; Luigi Ferrucci; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Stephanie A Studenski; Maria T Vassileva; Peggy M Cawthon Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Mansour Ghasemikaram; Oliver Chaudry; Armin M Nagel; Michael Uder; Franz Jakob; Wolfgang Kemmler; Matthias Kohl; Klaus Engelke Journal: Geroscience Date: 2021-01-15 Impact factor: 7.713
Authors: Josje D Schoufour; Michael Tieland; Rocco Barazzoni; Somaya Ben Allouch; Joey van der Bie; Yves Boirie; Alfonso J Cruz-Jentoft; Doris Eglseer; Eva Topinková; Bart Visser; Trudy Voortman; Amalia Tsagari; Peter J M Weijs Journal: Front Nutr Date: 2021-05-24
Authors: John A Batsis; Christian Haudenschild; Robert M Roth; Tyler L Gooding; Meredith N Roderka; Travis Masterson; John Brand; Matthew C Lohman; Todd A Mackenzie Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 4.669