Jesse Zanker1,2,3, Gustavo Duque4,5,6. 1. Australian Institute for Musculoskeletal Science (AIMSS), The University of Melbourne and Western Health, St. Albans, VIC, Australia. 2. Department of Medicine - Western Health, Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, St Albans, VIC, Australia. 3. Department of Geriatric Medicine, Western Health, St Albans, VIC, Australia. 4. Australian Institute for Musculoskeletal Science (AIMSS), The University of Melbourne and Western Health, St. Albans, VIC, Australia. gustavo.duque@unimelb.edu.au. 5. Department of Medicine - Western Health, Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, St Albans, VIC, Australia. gustavo.duque@unimelb.edu.au. 6. Department of Geriatric Medicine, Western Health, St Albans, VIC, Australia. gustavo.duque@unimelb.edu.au.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Osteosarcopenia is commonly accepted as the presence of low muscle mass and function (sarcopenia) and low bone mineral density (osteopenia and osteoporosis). Osteosarcopenia remains a topic of controversy as researchers worldwide seek to elucidate whether osteosarcopenia is associated with greater risk of negative outcomes than its component parts. This review examines the latest research and controversies, and charts a path forward. RECENT FINDINGS: Osteosarcopenia may occur in 5-37% of community-dwelling adults over the age of 65. This wide range is driven by variation in population, setting, and definitions applied. These differences in study design have resulted in mixed findings in associations with adverse outcomes for older adults living with osteosarcopenia. Research into interventions to prevent or treat osteosarcopenia, such as exercise, protein supplementation, and pharmacotherapy, is in its infancy but examined herein. The absence of a consensus operational definition of sarcopenia, and inaccurate measures of muscle mass, has hampered global progress in the field. We present a case for the path forward by reflecting on our recent history.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Osteosarcopenia is commonly accepted as the presence of low muscle mass and function (sarcopenia) and low bone mineral density (osteopenia and osteoporosis). Osteosarcopenia remains a topic of controversy as researchers worldwide seek to elucidate whether osteosarcopenia is associated with greater risk of negative outcomes than its component parts. This review examines the latest research and controversies, and charts a path forward. RECENT FINDINGS: Osteosarcopenia may occur in 5-37% of community-dwelling adults over the age of 65. This wide range is driven by variation in population, setting, and definitions applied. These differences in study design have resulted in mixed findings in associations with adverse outcomes for older adults living with osteosarcopenia. Research into interventions to prevent or treat osteosarcopenia, such as exercise, protein supplementation, and pharmacotherapy, is in its infancy but examined herein. The absence of a consensus operational definition of sarcopenia, and inaccurate measures of muscle mass, has hampered global progress in the field. We present a case for the path forward by reflecting on our recent history.
Authors: Jürgen M Bauer; Alfonso J Cruz-Jentoft; Roger A Fielding; John A Kanis; Jean-Yves Reginster; Olivier Bruyère; Matteo Cesari; Roland Chapurlat; Nasser Al-Daghri; Elaine Dennison; Jean-Marc Kaufman; Francesco Landi; Andrea Laslop; Médéa Locquet; Stefania Maggi; Eugene McCloskey; Simone Perna; René Rizzoli; Yves Rolland; Mariangela Rondanelli; Pawel Szulc; Bruno Vellas; Mila Vlaskovska; Cyrus Cooper Journal: Calcif Tissue Int Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Peggy M Cawthon; Thomas G Travison; Todd M Manini; Sheena Patel; Karol M Pencina; Roger A Fielding; Jay M Magaziner; Anne B Newman; Todd Brown; Douglas P Kiel; Steve R Cummings; Michelle Shardell; Jack M Guralnik; Linda J Woodhouse; Marco Pahor; Ellen Binder; Ralph B D'Agostino; Xue Quian-Li; Eric Orwoll; Francesco Landi; Denise Orwig; Laura Schaap; Nancy K Latham; Vasant Hirani; Timothy Kwok; Suzette L Pereira; Daniel Rooks; Makoto Kashiwa; Moises Torres-Gonzalez; Joseph P Menetski; Rosaly Correa-De-Araujo; Shalender Bhasin Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2020-06-18 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Ya Ruth Huo; Pushpa Suriyaarachchi; Fernando Gomez; Carmen L Curcio; Derek Boersma; Susan W Muir; Manuel Montero-Odasso; Piumali Gunawardene; Oddom Demontiero; Gustavo Duque Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2014-12-12 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: David Scott; Markus Seibel; Robert Cumming; Vasi Naganathan; Fiona Blyth; David G Le Couteur; David J Handelsman; Louise M Waite; Vasant Hirani Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: William J Evans; John E Morley; Josep Argilés; Connie Bales; Vickie Baracos; Denis Guttridge; Aminah Jatoi; Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh; Herbert Lochs; Giovanni Mantovani; Daniel Marks; William E Mitch; Maurizio Muscaritoli; Armine Najand; Piotr Ponikowski; Filippo Rossi Fanelli; Morrie Schambelan; Annemie Schols; Michael Schuster; David Thomas; Robert Wolfe; Stefan D Anker Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2008-08-21 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: Maryam Kazemi; Brittany Y Jarrett; Stephen A Parry; Anna E Thalacker-Mercer; Kathleen M Hoeger; Steven D Spandorfer; Marla E Lujan Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 5.958